[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11851-S11859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AIR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT--Continued

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
substitute amendment I presented earlier today be agreed to and be 
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1891) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1892

 (Purpose: To consolidate and revise the provisions relating to slots 
          and slot exemptions at the 4 high-density airports)

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I now send an amendment to the desk for 
myself, for Mr. Rockefeller, for Mr. Grassley, for Mr. Harkin, and for 
Mr. Ashcroft, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Ashcroft, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1892.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I am going to explain this amendment in 
some detail, as it has been the subject of both long negotiations and 
much controversy internally in the Commerce Committee in the almost 7 
months since the Commerce Committee bill was reported to the floor, and 
today.
  I will say right now, for my friend and colleague from Illinois, 
after I have spoken on the amendment and Senator Rockefeller has made 
any remarks on the amendment that he wishes, at the reasonable request 
of the Senator from Illinois, after any remarks he wishes to make, we 
will not take further action on this amendment today. The Senator from 
Illinois may have an amendment to this amendment. He may simply debate 
against and speak against the passage of this amendment. He prefers to 
do that tomorrow. At least informally, I will undertake that it will be 
the first subject taken up tomorrow. I am not certain I can give him 
absolute assurance of that, but I believe it should be the first 
subject taken up tomorrow, the debate to take place on it, and the 
positions of the Senator from Illinois presented.
  There are other Members of the body who may also wish to amend this 
amendment. This amendment is central to this overall debate. Once we 
have completed action on this amendment, I suspect most of the other 
amendments to the bill will require much less time and will be much 
less controversial.
  In any event, the background to the high density rule that is the 
central subject of this amendment is this: In 1968, that is to say, 31 
years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration established a regulation 
to address serious congestion and delay problems at five of the 
nation's airports. That regulation, known as the high density rule and 
implemented in 1969, governed the allocation of capacity at Chicago 
O'Hare, Washington National, and JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports in 
the New York City area. Newark was later exempted from the rule, so it 
now applies only to four airports.

  The high density rule allocates capacity at the four airports by 
imposing limits on the number of operations (takeoffs or landings) 
during certain periods of the day. The authority to conduct a single 
operation during those periods is commonly referred to as a ``slot.''
  The Gorton/Rockfeller amendment consolidates all of the negotiated 
agreements to lift the high density rule, the slot rule, at Chicago 
O'Hare, LaGuardia, and JFK, and to ease the high density rule and the 
perimeter rule restrictions at Reagan National.
  With respect to Chicago O'Hare, the amendment would eliminate the 
high density rule at O'Hare, effective April 1, 2003.
  Regional jets and turboprops would be exempt from slot requirements 
effective January 1, 2000, for service to airports with fewer than 2 
million annual enplanements. There are two additional conditions that 
would have to be met before carriers could take advantage of this 
interim regional jet/turboprop exemption. First, there could be no more 
than one carrier already providing nonstop service to that airport from 
O'Hare. Second, the exemption would only be available for new service 
in the market, such as when a carrier is adding a frequency to the 
applicable market, or upgrading the aircraft that provides its existing 
service in the market from a turboprop to a regional jet.
  Regional jets would be defined as aircraft having between 30 and 50 
seats.

[[Page S11852]]

  Limited incumbent air carriers would also be exempt from the slot 
requirements at O'Hare, effective January 1, 2000. The terms ``new 
entrant'' and ``limited incumbent'' air carrier are often used 
interchangeably. Limited incumbent air carriers are currently defined 
as those carriers that hold or operate 12 or fewer slots at a high 
density airport. The Gorton/Rockefeller amendment would redefine 
limited incumbents as those carriers that hold or operate 20 or fewer 
slots at a high density airport. The limited incumbent would be exempt 
from the high density rule only if they were providing new service, or 
service that they were not already providing in a market
  The Department of Transportation would be required to monitor the 
flights that are operated without slots under the exemption from the 
high density rule. If a carrier was operating a flight that did not 
meet the specified criteria, the Department of Transportation would be 
required to terminate the authority for that flight.
  O'Hare is currently slot controlled from 6:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. The 
amendment would reduce the slot controlled window at O'Hare from 2:45 
p.m. to 8:15 p.m., effective April 1, 2002.
  International service to O'Hare would be exempt from the slot 
requirements beginning April 1, 2000, except or foreign carriers where 
reciprocal access to foreign airports for United States carriers is not 
available.
  Carriers would be required to continue serving small hub and nonhub 
airports where the carrier ``provides air transportation of passengers 
. . . on or before the date of enactment'' of the bill using slot 
exemptions. This period of required service at O'Hare would last until 
March 31, 2007. A carrier could get out from under these requirements 
if it could demonstrate to DOT that it is losing money on the route.

  The amendment would terminate the high density rule at LaGuardia and 
JFK, effective calendar year 2007.
  Regional jets would be eligible for slot exemptions for service to 
airports with fewer than two million annual enplanements. There are two 
additional conditions that would have to be met before carriers could 
get a regional jet slot exemption. First, there could be no more than 
one carrier already providing nonstop service to that airport from 
LaGuardia or JFK. Second, the exemption would only be available for new 
service in the market, such as when a carrier is adding a frequency to 
the applicable market, or upgrading the aircraft that provides its 
existing service in the market from a turbo-prop to a regional jet.
  Regional jets would be defined as aircraft having between 30 and 50 
seats.
  Limited incumbent air carriers would also be eligible for slot 
exemptions at LaGuardia and JFK. Limited incumbent air carriers are 
currently defined as those carriers that hold or operate 12 or fewer 
slots at a high density airport. The Gorton/Rockefeller amendment would 
redefine limited incumbents as those carriers that hold or operate 20 
or fewer slots at a high density airport.
  The amendment would ease the current criteria that enable new 
entrant/limited incumbent air carriers to acquire slot exemptions. The 
Department of Transportation is currently authorized to grant these 
slot exemptions when to do so would be in the public interest, and when 
circumstances are exceptional. On most occasions, DOT has interpreted 
the ``exceptional circumstances'' criterion to mean that there is no 
nonstop service in the route proposed to be served. In other words, DOT 
would grant an exemption only when there is no service between the city 
proposed to be served and the high density airport. The amendment would 
eliminate the ``exceptional circumstances'' criterion.
  The amendment would establish a 45-day turnaround for all slot 
exemption applications submitted to the Department of Transportation. 
If the Department does not act on the application within 45 days, it 
would be deemed to be approved and consequently the carrier could 
initiate the proposed service.
  Carriers would be required to continue serving small hub and nonhub 
airports where the carrier ``provides air transportation of passengers 
*  *  * on or before the date of enactment'' of the bill using slot 
exemptions. This period of required service at LaGuardia and JFK would 
last until calendar year 2009. A carrier could get out from under these 
requirements it it could demonstrate to DOT that it is losing money on 
the route.
  Next Reagan National. The amendment would establish 12 perimeter 
rule/slot exemptions for service beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter. To 
qualify for beyond-perimeter exemptions, the proposed service would 
have to provide domestic network benefits or increase competition by 
new entrant air carriers.
  The amendment would establish 12 slot exemptions for service within 
the perimeter. Carriers could only apply to serve medium hubs or 
smaller airports from Reagan National.
  The amendment would establish a 45-day turnaround for all slot 
exemption and perimeter rule exemption applications submitted to the 
Department of Transportation. If the Department does not act on the 
application within 45 days, it would be deemed to be approved and 
consequently the carrier could initiate the proposed service.

  On another subject, safety and delays, the Department of 
Transportation concluded in a 1995 report entitled, ``Report to the 
Congress: A Study of the High Density Rule'', that changing the high 
density rule will not affect air safety. According to DOT, today's 
sophisticated traffic management system limits demand to operationally 
safe levels through a variety of air traffic control programs and 
procedures that are implemented independently of the limits imposed by 
the high density rule. The Department report makes assurances that Air 
Traffic Control, ATC, will continue to apply these programs and 
procedures for ensuring safety regardless of what happens to the high 
density rule.
  Many improvements have been made in infrastructure and air traffic 
management in the 30 years since the high density rule was first 
implemented, which should allow for additional operations without 
additional delays.
  Improvements on the ground, including high speed runway turnouts, 
additional taxiways, and larger holding areas at the ends of the 
runways allow more efficient utilization of the gates and ground 
facilities and thus increase the capacity at high density airports.
  Enroute, approach and departure air traffic management improvements 
have increased the air space capacity above high density airports.
  In 1968 there were no ``flow control'' measures. Aircraft stacked up 
in the air rather than being planned and routed for arrival. Modern ATC 
flow control has significantly increased the airspace capacityu, while 
improving safety.
  Greater precision radar has decreased aircraft spacing requirements, 
thus increasing capacity without sacrificing safety. Further 
improvements are expected with the existing Global Positioning System, 
GPS, Technology, allowing for additional capacity increases.
  Future initiatives at Chicago's O'Hare and New York's LaGuardia and 
JFK will permit growth without undue operational delays.
  Airspace redesign, essentially the rethinking of the approach, 
departure and routing of aircraft, was proven effective in a recent 
pilot project a Dallas-Fort Worth. Redesign efforts are currently 
underway for the Chicago area and other airports.
  Other FAA programs, such as RNAV (area navigation) and the National 
Route Program, already in use in some locations, will further enhance 
enroute and terminal capacity.
  Technology improvements such as digital data transfer between 
controllers and pilots, automation tools for managing traffic flows, 
and precision location devices such as GPS will greatly increase 
capacity throughout the national airspace system.
  The recent ATC problems were due in part to the unique combination of 
adverse weather and the introduction of new systems at key airports. 
The gradual phaseout of the high density rule will allow time to fix 
these problems, and for the growth in capacity to match the increased 
air traffic control capability.
  The amendment allows 7 years before the slot rule is removed for the 
New York airports, and more than 3 years for Chicago. This phaseout 
allows adequate time for the FAA's initiatives to be in place.
  Even if there is some increase in delays, in both Chicago and New 
York,

[[Page S11853]]

competitive nearby airports such as Midway and Islip provide a natural 
safety valve.
  Many new entrant carriers operating point-to-point have found that 
using nearby secondary airports is a profitable way to offer service to 
major cities. If delays and the associated costs do increase in Chicago 
and New York's major airports, more operations will naturally move to 
these secondary airports.
  Madam President, that is an explanation both of the details of this 
amendment and the rationale for the amendment. Again, in connection 
with the bill as a whole, this represents the level of partnership 
between Senator Rockefeller and myself, but as broad consultation and 
as much agonizing discussion over the details as can possibly be 
imagined under circumstances on a subject so important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I fully agree with my colleague 
from Washington. In fact, I have a whole series of pages about various 
States, various airports, various Senators, and the problems they had--
and in one case may still have--with whom we worked out agreements. 
This was a very arduous process.
  An airport is a very large employer when one is talking about the 
number of planes that can fly in and fly out. Every flight, in fact, 
represents two slots, a landing and a takeoff. It was a very 
controversial subject. This is probably the most controversial subject, 
but we worked a long time to try to work this out. We did it, as the 
Senator indicated, with an expedited review process in certain places, 
we did it in good faith, we did it slowly, and we did it over a period 
of time. We did it, we thought, trying to accommodate as much as 
possible the needs of individual Senators who, quite naturally, take 
these things particularly seriously. The Presiding Officer and I wish 
we had problems of this sort, but for those who do, it is a real 
problem. We recognized that, and we tried to deal with it in a fair 
manner.
  First, I will not give the full explanation my colleague did, but I 
will say it is carefully crafted, it is based on compromise, and it 
balances both the questions of congestion and of noise. There are those 
who feel strongly about both or one or the other in various 
proportions. Obviously, all of them represent high-density airports, 
although it should be said there are a lot more than four high-density 
airports. Atlanta, for example, is neck and neck with O'Hare in terms 
of its density, but is not included in the high-density treatment.
  I thought the handling of Reagan National was good because we went 
from 48 slots to 24 slots; 12 outside the perimeter and 12 inside the 
perimeter. That is good for the Presiding Officer and the present 
speaker because that allows more entrants into National, and that is 
desirable.
  It also is a fact that this was in the original bill, and it was 
retained in the substitute. That speaks to something within the 
authorizing context. In other words, people on the Commerce Committee 
overwhelmingly believed this was a very important and fair treatment.
  We did not make the treatment of every airport exactly the same in 
terms of the phasing out of the high density rule because not every 
airport is the same. We did not do it as a collection of our own air 
genius or mathematical equations; we did it because the FAA advised us 
very carefully as to what we ought to do on that according to their 
best calculations. The idea was, instead of gradually phasing out the 
high density rule altogether, to, rather, establish some interim rules 
to allow small communities--this is a very important point--to allow 
small communities and to allow new entrants to get a head start on this 
process.
  If you come from rural America and if you believe in a competitive 
market system, that becomes extremely important. Small communities do 
get a head start to add flights and fill capacity in this compromise 
which has been worked out.
  I have explained the Reagan Airport situation.
  The amendment, again, specifically protects service to small 
communities--which is of interest to many of us--under slot exemptions 
that were previously granted by the Department of Transportation.
  It requires that airlines continue the service until 4 years after 
the lifting of the high density rule at O'Hare--until the year 2007--
and 2 years after the lifting of the high density rule at Kennedy and 
LaGuardia for that purpose.
  Understandably, some Members were very concerned. When we began to 
talk about this, they were very worried it would come off that the 
airlines, therefore, would have no incentive to keep any of their 
business in smaller communities or in smaller markets; that they could 
simply pick up their slots and take them elsewhere.
  This amendment prevents them from doing that. It prevents them from 
abandoning these markets unless, as Senator Gorton indicated, they can 
prove to the Department of Transportation--which will be under the 
majority of this body, which is rural or part rural in nature; a lot of 
pressure--that they are suffering, as they say, substantial losses on 
these routes. So that is a clear effort to protect service for small 
communities, and that is something which I value very much.
  As Senator Gorton also explained, this amendment expands the 
definition of a ``limited incumbent.'' These carriers are already 
serving one of the four high-density airports, but do so with only a 
very few number of flights. This was of particular value to many of our 
Midwestern colleagues. There are a whole series of them who, I think, 
are quite happy as a result of this.
  The new definition will give more low-fare, new-entrant carriers 
access to these major airports. Again, I go back to the philosophy of 
all of this that, after all, we do have 15, 18 major airports in the 
country, but fundamentally we are a hub-and-spoke system. And the 
Presiding Officer and the junior Senator from West Virginia come from 
States that are spokes; we are not hubs. We never will be. We depend 
upon carriers that are in the hubs coming out, as they compete in this 
most competitive of all businesses--in our market system--to compete 
for new passengers. So they, in classic fashion, have to increasingly 
come out into the rural areas to draw passengers into their hubs. There 
will be an amendment about the nature of these hubs to attract them, so 
they can put them into the bloodstream, so to speak, the flow stream of 
their business.

  In my opening statement, when I talked about the enormous increase in 
new regional jets which will be taking place in the next number of 
years, that is one of the reasons the number of these regional jets 
will be increasing--because they are being sent from hubs out to the 
smaller areas to pick up passengers, to bring them into the larger hub 
airports, and then going on to wherever they wish from there.
  One very important thing. I am not sure the Senator from Washington 
said this or not; he probably did, knowing him. There is an important 
caveat for any change in the high density rule. This is not just 
something the Congress has such power to decide that we just abrogate 
or pretend the FAA does not have ultimate understanding of what 
constitutes safety in a system.
  The FAA retains the ultimate authority for air traffic operations, 
and they have the ability to step in because of safety or delay. They 
can intervene. They can intervene when they think there is a problem or 
a crisis. And they can do so on a unilateral basis.
  In addition, I might add, both the General Accounting Office and a 
number of economists, over a lot of years, have pointed out that slot 
rules, in effect, act as a major barrier to airline competition. That 
new entry at four airports--there are a lot of people who cannot get 
into those airports because of the slot rule. Again, the FAA would have 
to maintain the sureness of safety, and the rest of it, but you want 
people to be able to get in and out of airports.
  As to new technology, if we would only make available the money, they 
have all kinds of new ways now of charting courses for airplanes, be 
they commercial or private, which allow a more efficient use of 
airspace, which we cannot now do because we do not have the technology. 
Each computer in all of these many centers across the country does not 
have the ability to differentiate the altitudes or whatever some of the 
other details are that allow the plotting of air courses. So there is 
room for more, and in not only the four

[[Page S11854]]

high-density airports but also generally speaking.
  Then, finally, this amendment does require noise studies. Noise is a 
factor. Noise is not the only factor in life, but it is a factor. It 
gives priority to high-density airports. There is the allocation of 
money for those noise abatement studies.
  So I think it is a very good amendment. It certainly is a long-
worked-at amendment. I urge my colleagues to join in the adoption of 
this amendment.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, does the Senator from Illinois wish to 
make any remarks now or should we just go on to another subject?

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, if I could just take a moment now, I 
say to the Senator from Washington, I would be happy to take my time 
tomorrow when we consider the amendment on lifting the high density 
rule. But if I could just reiterate my opposition to lifting the high 
density rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. As was noted earlier, the FAA imposed the high 
density rule back in the late 1960s. It was an internal FAA rule. I 
guess I am a little perplexed as to why Congress would come in and 
rewrite, with statute, an FAA rule.
  If the FAA thinks it is a good idea to lift the slot rules at O'Hare, 
if they think it is safe to do that, they are confident it will not add 
to any delays at the most congested, most delay-filled airport in the 
country, then the FAA can go in and do that. So I guess the threshold 
issue is, I am perplexed why we would come in and write a statute that 
overrides a Federal Aviation Administration rule.
  I do believe, while the proponents of this proposal have good 
intentions; they would like to increase competition and access to the 
Chicago market; and certainly it could be argued that would benefit the 
whole Nation and could even benefit Chicago--a basic law of physics 
says that you cannot have two objects occupying the same space at one 
time.
  Right now, O'Hare, which has over 900,000 operations a year, is 
already at capacity. The FAA commissioned a study in 1995. That study 
concluded that the absolute maximum number of flights or operations one 
could have at O'Hare in an hour was 158. Today, we are at 163 
operations at O'Hare in an hour. This proposal before the Senate is to 
lift any restrictions at all.
  A flight lands and takes off every 20 seconds at O'Hare. If we want 
to cram more flights into O'Hare International Airport, are we going to 
close that 20 seconds that divides each flight going in and out of 
O'Hare? What is a safe amount of time? Ten seconds between flights? How 
would you like to be coming in 10 seconds behind the plane in front of 
you with another flight 10 seconds behind you? Would you feel safe 
flying that jumbo jet in that compact air space?
  Going into O'Hare right now, one can look in every direction and see 
planes lined up as far as the eye can see waiting to land at O'Hare. In 
the morning hours at O'Hare, there are typically as many as 100 flights 
waiting to take off.
  I hope the Members of this body will give thought to what we are 
doing. With this lifting of the high density rule, we are saying it is 
safe to cram more flights into the most congested airport in the 
country; that it is not endangering the safety of the flying public and 
that it won't add delays.
  I never did take physics in high school. I have to admit it. I was a 
classics major. I majored in Latin and Greek. I took a lot of 
humanities courses and my great interest was not science. But I am 
going to be interested to hear whether there is some scientific 
evidence that we can keep packing more and more flights into the most 
congested, dense, delay-filled, crowded air traffic space in the world. 
I will be interested to learn why other Members of this body think that 
is a good policy and why it would be safe.

  With that, I look forward to being afforded the opportunity to speak 
on this matter tomorrow. I thank the distinguished Senators from West 
Virginia and the State of Washington for conferring with me this 
afternoon. I look forward to being given the time to address this 
matter to the full Senate body tomorrow. Hopefully, at that time, more 
of my colleagues will have arrived, many of whom will have passed 
through O'Hare and probably some, quite a few, who will have incurred 
delays on their way passing through O'Hare.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all first-
degree amendments to S. 82 be filed at the desk by 10 a.m. tomorrow, 
Tuesday, with all other provisions of the consent agreement of 
September 30 still in effect. This has been cleared on all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1893

     (Purpose: To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
  management reforms of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
Senator Rockefeller and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside so we may consider this one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself and 
     Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 1893.

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, last Friday, I joined my friend and 
colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing S. 1682. This measure is 
the culmination of input from a broad range of aviation interests. 
Senator Rockefeller and I have been holding a series of meetings with 
industry representatives searching for input on how we can make a 
positive legislative impact on the current air traffic control system.
  Three common themes emerged from these meetings: First, there will be 
a crisis in the aviation industry if we continue to experience the 
delays that plagued the system this summer. Second, the Federal 
Aviation Administration is doing a better job of responding to these 
problems under Administrator Garvey. The third point is, incremental 
changes are probably the best approach to take in reforming the system, 
as much as the Senator from West Virginia and I might very well prefer 
a more drastic reform.
  The amendment we have just introduced is the text of that S. 1682.
  Madam President, by now I am sure you have heard the analogy that 
fixing the air traffic control system is similar to trying to change a 
flat tire while traveling down the highway at 60 miles per hour. While 
I don't view the problem as being that daunting, I certainly think we 
can use a few good mechanics to help get the FAA back on the right 
track. I think the legislation Senator Rockefeller and I have 
introduced is a step in the right direction. While I am in favor of an 
end result that goes much further, positive action is needed. At this 
time, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  Our approach would attack the problem from the management side. It is 
no secret that the FAA has a history of problems controlling costs and 
schedules on large-scale projects. We hope the creation of the chief 
operating officer position, with responsibility for running and 
modernizing our air traffic control system, will inject the necessary 
discipline into that system. S. 1682, the current amendment, would also 
create a subcommittee of the Management Advisory Committee to oversee 
air traffic control services. Of course, in order for there to be a 
subcommittee of the MAC, we must first have an MAC. I am assured by the 
FAA that the Management Advisory Committee will be appointed soon. Let 
me assure you that this subcommittee chairman will not look favorably 
on any further delays on this question.
  As we prepare to move into the 21st century, the NAS must be prepared 
to

[[Page S11855]]

meet the challenges of increasing demand on an already strained system. 
A blueprint for this system should be a top priority for the FAA. S. 
1682, this amendment, authorizes $12 million a year for the FAA to 
develop a long-term plan to provide direction. The most radical portion 
of this bill and the amendment deal with an innovative financing pilot 
project. This provision would set up a mechanism to establish public-
private joint ventures to purchase air traffic control equipment. Ten 
projects for ATC modernization equipment will be selected, $5 million 
per project, with a total cap of $500 million. FAA seed money would be 
leveraged, along with money and input from the airports and airlines, 
more quickly to purchase and field ATC modernization equipment.
  As I stated earlier, this is not the final solution to our air 
traffic control system woes. We hope, however, that this will be the 
first step in a long journey to ensure Americans continue to enjoy the 
safest, most efficient aviation system in the world. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

  An oversight committee for air traffic control: The bill and the 
amendment provide the FAA Administrator with authority to create a 
subcommittee of the current Management Advisory Committee, a 15-member 
panel appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, to oversee air traffic control services.
  A COO for air traffic: The bill and the amendment create a new chief 
operating officer position with responsibility for running and 
modernizing air traffic control services, developing and implementing 
strategic and operational plans, and the budget for air traffic 
services. The COO reports to and serves at the pleasure of the 
Administrator for a 5-year term. Compensation is comparable to the 
Administrator's but with the possibility of up to a 50-percent 
performance bonus at the discretion of the Administrator.
  Performance bonus for the FAA Administrator: The bill and the 
amendment provide a performance bonus for the FAA Administrator at the 
discretion of the Secretary of Transportation of up to 50 percent of 
the Administrator's salary.
  National Airspace Review and Redesign: The bill and the amendment 
mandate a review and redesign of the entire country's airspace. They 
authorize $12 million per year to carry out the project, require 
industry and State input, and impose periodic reporting.
  Cost allocation milestones report: The bill and the amendment require 
the FAA to provide a report on the progress it is making on the cost 
allocation system.
  ATC joint venture: The bill and the amendment set up a mechanism to 
establish public-private joint ventures to purchase air traffic control 
equipment. Ten projects for air traffic control modernization equipment 
will be selected, $50 million per project, with a total cap of $500 
million. FAA seed money will be leveraged, along with money and input 
from the airports and airlines, more quickly to purchase and field ATC 
modernization equipment. A portion of the passenger facility charge, 25 
cents, could also be used for financing.

  That is a brief explanation of the bill and, of course, of this 
amendment. The Senator from West Virginia and I believe we will 
probably be able to accept this amendment by a voice vote tomorrow. But 
we do want it before the body at the present time, so that if anybody 
has any questions about it or about any of the provisions of the 
amendment, they may contact us before the proposal comes back up 
tomorrow. My present intention would be to bring this up for discussion 
and vote after we have disposed of the early amendment on slots and any 
amendments to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I agree with everything my 
colleague from Washington has said. I should say that he and I began 
working on this amendment in earnest a number of months ago when we 
were in the midst of the summer and the headlines were full of all the 
problems of the air traffic control system, which were becoming 
manifest to anybody reading a newspaper, watching television, or 
listening to the radio.
  When I use the word ``troubled'' to describe our air traffic system, 
I need to be very careful and clear because the FAA, our air traffic 
controllers, the pilots, and flight attendants in this country have had 
an air safety record that is extraordinary. It is not only safe but it 
is a very secure air traffic operation. So people say: Fine. Then why 
worry about the future?
  As I explained in my opening statement, the future is going to bring 
double, or triple, or quadruple virtually everything--whether it is air 
cargo, letters, passengers, numbers of aircraft, international traffic, 
and the rest of it.
  Let me assure my colleagues that the word ``troubled'' is not about 
safety, although we always have to keep our eye on that, but it is 
about productivity, about capacity, about efficiency, about outdated 
equipment, about insufficient runways, and insufficient runways that 
are insufficiently distant from one another; if there happen to be two, 
or if they happen to be parallel, you can't use them efficiently to 
land two airplanes at the same time. It is about surging traffic 
demand, about fractured organizational structure, and it is about us in 
the Congress; it is about a highly unpredictable, highly irregular 
process of funding.
  Funding the FAA and its air traffic control operation is not at all 
unlike running IBM or Dell Computer. You are meant to have a business 
plan, a 5-year outlay of budget, and you are meant to know what kind of 
equipment you can buy 1 year from now, 2 years from now, 3 years from 
now, so you can begin to prepare for that. We in this Congress, have 
specialized in declining to make that ability available to the people 
who fly 2 million of our people around every day. So what Senator 
Gorton and I have done today is not to offer, as he indicated, dramatic 
reform or restructuring of the FAA, because we know there is a lot to 
be worked through, that it would be premature to do that today.
  In fact, on the floor of this body and in the Halls of this Congress, 
there is very little discussion, if any, on what ought to be discussed 
at great length about the FAA--about equipment, about computers, about 
what is the state of stress, or lack of stress, for the people who are 
in our towers, whom both the Senator from Washington and I have 
visited.
  So we are trying to decide how best to proceed on FAA restructuring, 
and we have decided to try to get as much consensus from the Congress 
and industry and across the Nation as we can. Now, some believe we 
should create an independent FAA, a privatized FAA. Some believe we 
should privatize air traffic altogether. Some believe user fee funding 
is the key to improving efficiency. Some believe the FAA is slow and 
cumbersome because it is a Federal agency. And some believe they are 
kind of on the right track already, so why intervene--again, no 
catastrophic actions.
  In any event, despite the fact that we are not ready to enact--
Senator Gorton and I--a so-called big-bang solution, in no way is there 
reason to do nothing. It is to take steps to make air traffic control 
next year better than this year or next year for the FAA to be better 
than this year. It is clear that the FAA needs interim reform and 
interim direction and encouragement. So as the Senator indicated, we 
are offering a package of incremental reforms that will, in a sense, 
send the FAA both the tools and the message to improve current 
management and operation of the system without prejudging what the 
final long-term broad change might be.

  The Air Traffic Improvement Act of 1999 is focused in two key areas, 
as my colleague discussed. The first is internal FAA management 
reforms, and the second is modernization of equipment and technology. 
Both are enormously important. On the management side, the bill builds 
on reforms enacted in 1996. It uses the management advisory committee, 
or MAC as it is called, which I will have to say the administration has 
not set records in putting in place, i.e., they have not. But they have 
said they are going to send the nominations for it very soon and 
designate a subcommittee to advise and oversee air traffic control 
services.
  We create in this amendment a chief operating officer position, and 
that is very important. There isn't any corporation of any size that 
doesn't have

[[Page S11856]]

that kind of person. You have the person who runs it, the CEO, and you 
might have the chief financial officer, but you always have a chief 
operating officer. We don't. The FAA has 55,000 people for whom it is 
responsible. That is a very large corporation. We believe that, 
together, the chief operating officer and the ATC Subcommittee will 
have central responsibility for running and modernizing air traffic 
control, developing a strategic plan, and implementing it.
  I personally have enormous respect for the FAA and believe in and 
trust in the judgment, instincts, and actions of our Administrator, 
Jane Garvey. I think she is absolutely first class. I have spent a lot 
of time with her and talked a lot with her. She ran Boston airport. If 
you run Boston airport, you know what you are doing. She knows what she 
is doing. She has a strategic way of thinking. She listens a lot. She 
is around the country visiting people a great deal. We are very lucky 
to have her. But putting together a budget for air traffic services is 
very important and calls for a chief operating officer.
  Having said that, let me say the Administrator will continue to 
always have the final say and always the accountability for air 
traffic. This is not a dilution of responsibility; it is simply making 
an organization more efficient, with no dilution of responsibility for 
the Administrator. We have to make sure we can attract and maintain the 
highest caliber leadership in our system. Again, I make the comparison 
to IBM or Dell Computer, which are very large corporations. Public 
service does not pay very well.

  Senator Gorton and I believe it is very important that we have the 
highest caliber and that we retain the highest caliber leadership in 
running our system. That means including the possibility of a 
performance bonus for the chief operating officer and for the FAA 
Administrator at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. 
That is a very important point. Some people will say: Oh, that is going 
to be more salary.
  Again, I remind you that there are 50,000 people, 2 million 
passengers, and all of these airplanes going all over the country. I 
have a chart, which I will not hold up because I don't believe in 
displaying charts on the Senate floor. I never have, and I hope I never 
do. But if I did, I would show you a chart which is basically the 
entire United States colored in red. The red is made up of very fine, 
little red lines, each one representing a flight. At a specific hour of 
a specific day--if you pick, for example, 5 o'clock in the morning, I 
am not one who would eagerly seek the opportunity to fly at 5 o'clock 
in the morning, but there are many Americans who do--if you look even 
at the west coast, it is colored red. If you look at 8 o'clock in the 
morning, you might as well forget anything in the country other than 
the color red.
  I raise the suspicion that they must have left out West Virginia 
because we don't have a lot of flights at 5 o'clock or 8 o'clock in 
West Virginia. The point was made in clear logic that these are planes 
that are flying over the State of West Virginia and perhaps the State 
of Maine in the process.
  In any event, I believe in the idea, when you have a system that is 
complicated requiring that much technology, requiring that much 
efficiency, and requiring planning, that you get and you retain the 
best people possible. That means, in my judgment, and in Senator 
Gorton's judgment, the possibility of a performance bonus for the chief 
operating officer and the FAA Administrator.
  The bill also makes clear that the Administrator should use her full 
authority to make organizational changes to improve the efficiency of 
the system and the effectiveness of the agency. That is kind of a bland 
sentence, but within it is a lot of power.
  It is a little bit similar to HCFA. I have dealt now with I don't 
know how many HCFA Administrators. But they all say: Just give me four 
or five good lieutenants and I will be able to control this agency. 
They all failed because there are 4,000 health care experts in HCFA who 
look upon each HCFA Administrator as somebody who is going to be there 
for 2 years, and they are usually right; and be gone within 2 years, 
and they are usually right; that they will be there forever, and they 
are usually right. They know about health care. But they choose not to 
make decisions rapidly or efficiently. That means the Administrator and 
the chief operating officer, if we have one, need to have a lot more 
authority in a sense to shake up the system.
  Senator Gorton and I would encourage that because we think that 
efficiency within the system is tremendously important. We set 
deadlines. We set milestones. We can't tell you right now in this 
country how much it costs for an airplane to fly from Boston, MA, to 
Dallas, TX. Ask us that question. Ask the FAA that question. How much 
does it cost? What is the cost of that flight? Nobody can give you an 
answer. That is inexcusable. This is one of the things that has to be 
done. It is one of the things that the FAA desperately wants to be able 
to do. What does it cost to run the air traffic control system in order 
to allow that flight to take place? We need to know those answers so we 
can allocate these costs fairly among users.

  That is a very important principle. Not all airlines are the same. 
Not all airlines use the same approaches or have the same number of 
people or charge the same. There are differences in what they pay. 
Their obligations to the system, in terms of financial input, have to 
be based upon what their costs are. Therefore, we need to know what 
those costs are.
  With respect to air traffic modernization, the bill calls for a 
comprehensive review and design of our airspace on a nationwide basis. 
Are we using it effectively? Are there more creative ways of routing a 
plane safely? You can do that if you have new technology. They have the 
technology at Herndon, VA. But do they have it in all of the air 
traffic control centers across this country? The answer is no, they 
don't. Until they do, that is going to be hard.
  But Senator Gorton and I have an obligation to push, to push the 
Congress and to push the Senate to want to focus on these problems: 
one, to care about these problems; and, second, to do something about 
this.
  We have 29 million miles of national airspace. I don't know how many 
times that is around the world, but it is a lot. Twenty-nine million 
miles of airspace is an incredible amount. It is divided into more than 
700 individually managed sectors. There are 25,000 of the 50,000 
employees that I mentioned who use 575 facilities that run these 
individually managed sectors. And the air traffic control system 
manages 55,000 flights and almost 2 million passengers every day. That 
is an enormous management problem. In fact, it is quite a lot more 
difficult, I would think, than running Dell Computers or running IBM. 
Yes, they are international operations. I am talking about their 
national operations. There is so much more at stake. The life, the 
safety, the economy, and the convenience of passengers is what is at 
stake. There is so much more at stake in arranging for the planes to be 
flown safely and properly.
  Having said all of this, of course, I add on, as I always should, 
that the capacity is going to double in the next decade. We are looking 
at an ever increasing problem. The FAA has already begun to redesign 
the process. They are not sitting around. They are working hard. They 
have established a dedicated airspace redesign office.
  Thanks to Senator Lautenberg, they received $3 million last year to 
get started with the redesign work in the New York airspace. That in 
itself is a national service because it is far and away the most 
congested airspace in the Nation. Is $3 million going to do that even 
for the New York area? No, but again, it is a start. It is not the Big 
Bang theory. But $3 million is enough to get going. Once you start 
moving, then people start taking a little bit more notice.
  We need a nationwide approach to this problem--not just in New York 
but across the country--rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis, 
especially since segmented thinking is considered by many, in fact, to 
be a part of the problem; that we do things by chunks or segments of 
the country rather than thinking of the country as a whole and how we 
can best provide a safe air carrier service for people, for packages, 
for letters, and the rest of it.
  The amendment we have offered would do all of this. That makes me 
happy. It makes me feel that it is a very good amendment.

[[Page S11857]]

  We direct the FAA to engage in comprehensive nationwide space 
redesign. We insist that there be industry and stakeholder input. 
Stakeholder is not shareholder necessarily. Stakeholder means people 
who ride on these airplanes. And we give them the resources they need 
to complete the work in a timely fashion.
  To realize the full potential of an airspace redesign, we have to 
have all of the advanced air traffic control equipment in place. Of 
course, we don't. We are very slow in that today, partly because of the 
technology development and procurement problems the FAA needs to fix 
internally. We talk a lot with Jane Garvey about that. She is acutely 
aware of that and has been working to change that. It is partly because 
of the vagaries of Congress; that is, the Federal budget process. We 
are impossible. We have been through so many extensions of a couple of 
months. It is like we are going out of our way to drive the whole 
process of this planning and the FAA crazy.
  That is why Senator Gorton and I are so glad we have these 2 days, 
hopefully, to even discuss this. A month and a half ago I wouldn't have 
bet that we would even be able to take this up this year. And we 
are. That is a gift to the nation, I think.

  If we can't bring it up, then the FAA obviously cannot make budget 
changes. We are on our way. Our amendment puts in place what Senator 
Gorton referred to earlier, a new financing mechanism. This is a 
creative, good thing in this amendment. It is for more rapid purchase 
of sought-after air traffic control equipment. The amendment sets up a 
pilot program to facilitate public-private joint ventures for the 
purpose of buying air traffic control equipment. It is not for profit. 
It is the Air Traffic Modernization Association. It is a three-member 
executive panel representing the FAA, commercial carriers, and primary 
airports.
  A lot of airports are very aggressive. I suspect there are several in 
the State of Maine that want to get going and are being held up. Maybe 
they have a little bit set aside. Perhaps they want to use some of 
their passenger service fee. Maybe they want to take 25 cents of that 
and leverage it into a rather large purchase for some air traffic 
control equipment which, in their judgment, they need. This allows them 
to do that. Don't wait for the priority list to come to Bangor, ME, or 
Charleston, WV. If they have the gumption, they can save up or they can 
use part of the passenger service fee, say, 25 cents of it, and 
leverage it and buy modern equipment and jump ahead of the pack. That 
is what this is about.
  Obviously, the FAA will continue to oversee that process. This will 
not be just a creative exercise by a few happy souls. All projects 
would have to be part of the FAA's capital plan. There is a cap of $50 
million in FAA funding per project. That is pretty good. Most won't use 
that much. Sponsoring airports can use a portion of their passenger 
facility charge to meet the commitment. I think that will be very 
important.
  I am sure the Senator from Washington remembers, I got in great 
trouble on this side of the aisle. I talked with Jane Garvey, Liddy 
Dole, and others. They said they spent 25 percent of their time as FAA 
Administrators working solely on concessionaire problems and 
negotiation problems at Dulles and National. If that was an 
exaggeration, give them 5 percent. That is when I broke away from our 
pack and said set up an independent, quasipublic-private authority and 
let National and Dulles go to the bond market; they will certainly get 
triple-A rating. They certainly did. We can see what happened to both 
airports. Dulles will have to do it all over again because they are so 
successful.
  That is what an airport needs to believe they can do. If an airline 
and its hub airport want new instrument landing equipment, six more 
precision runway monitors, and aren't on the FAA's list for that 
equipment or are still years away on the funding schedule, maybe they 
will decide to get together with the ATM Association on the proposal, 
the FAA will put up seed money and the airports will do the same. They 
go to the bond market, get financing for the whole project, and use 25 
cents--the PFC charge--to pay for it over 5 or 10 years. That is a 
great idea.
  I am excited about this approach as I am sure is obvious. We have 
only heard positive feedback from all parties--the industry and the 
airport community. They say, given the change, they are ready to go if 
we pass the amendment.
  Finally, the Air Traffic Management Improvement Act also includes 
authorization up to $100 million to speed up purchases and fielding of 
modernization equipment and technologies. I am happy to note we have 
dropped that provision because of the agreement reached with the 
majority--thank you to the majority--to increase authorization for FAA 
equipment and facilities by $500 million annually.

  We are on the move if we pass this. Over time, we will have to spend 
even more of our Federal dollars on air traffic control and 
modernization effort. I know we will be considering some ideas for 
solving FAA's budgetary problems when we go to conference.
  I--and I suspect I differ with my friend and colleague across the 
aisle from me--am supportive of Congressman Shuster's idea of off-
budget. I don't think we can mess around with this situation; it is 
fraught with danger, and catastrophe is around the corner if we are not 
willing to spend the money we need to spend. We did it with the highway 
trust fund. We can put up a firewall, do it off-budget. There are ways 
to do it. A person can go to some of the air traffic control facilities 
and see what they are doing, see the stress under which they are 
working. We have 2 million people in the air, and we want them to be 
safe.
  I am glad we are able to make a strong, tangible commitment to the 
needs of the system. I think these problems are all shared. We all bear 
some responsibility for them. We all need to step up to the plate to 
fix them. The FAA does a very commendable job with a very difficult 
task. They have a terrific safety record to show for it. I don't want 
to press their luck, ours, or the system's. The system, as it stands 
now, is not working as well as it could be or as it ought to be. We 
can't wait to do something about it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, we have now a unanimous consent 
agreement pursuant to which all amendments must be filed by 10 a.m. 
tomorrow. We appreciate the managers being apprised of those amendments 
to determine whether or not we can agree with some of them, unchanged 
or with modifications. We will probably go back to the fundamental 
amendment on slots to which the Senator from Illinois has objected and 
to which at least one Senator from Virginia, if not other Senators, 
have amendments to propose first thing tomorrow when we return to this 
bill.
  If, however, there are amendments that can be agreed to relatively 
quickly, we may do that later on this evening after the votes at 5:30.
  We will not debate either the Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill or nominations, so Members can come with amendments 
to this bill until 5:30 this afternoon. If they do, we will attempt to 
deal with them. If they don't, we will begin tomorrow. I know the 
leadership and certainly the managers of the bill want to finish this 
bill some time tomorrow.
  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. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 1893 
offered by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, for himself, 
Senator Rockefeller, and others.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1898

    (Purpose: To require the reporting of the reasons for delays or 
                     cancellations in air flights)

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

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1898.


[[Page S11858]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam 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.   . REPORTING OF REASONS FOR DELAYS OR CANCELLATIONS IN 
                   AIR FLIGHTS.

       In addition to the information required to be included in 
     each report filed with the Office of Airline Information of 
     the Department of Transportation under section 234.4 of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act), each air carrier subject to the 
     reporting requirement shall specify the reasons for delays or 
     cancellations in all air flights to and from all airports for 
     which the carrier provides service during the period covered 
     by the report.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am offering today an amendment to 
address what I believe is a complicated and growing problem for all 
Americans--flight delays and flight cancellations.
  The problem is not that delays and cancellations occur. Of course 
they do. That is only natural. But with different weather conditions, 
and with the country as large and complicated as it is, and airlines 
trying to maintain a tight schedule, it is only obvious that schedule 
can sometimes be deeply affected--by weather or equipment problems--so 
we must expect occasional delays and occasional cancellations.
  Right now, it is always a mystery why these delays and cancellations 
happen. We can guess. We can conjecture. Perhaps it is because of 
weather. Perhaps it is because of mechanical problems. Perhaps it is 
the fault of air traffic controllers. There are lots of reasons. But 
nobody knows--at least the public does not know--precisely the reasons 
for these delays and for these cancellations.
  Why is that? It is very simple. The airlines do not have to tell you. 
There is no requirement. So when you are stuck in an airport in the 
middle of the night, the airlines might let you know what is going on 
or they might not tell you. And after you finally reach your 
destination there's a pretty good chance that you are never going to 
know why it was you were stranded thousands of miles away from home, or 
why you missed that important business meeting. The airlines are not 
required to tell you the reasons for the delays and cancellations.
  You are probably wondering: Why does this matter? If you are stuck, 
you are stuck. So what is the big deal? What is the difference? The big 
deal is that it does matter. It does make a difference, a great deal of 
difference. Speed and efficiency are not only in the interest of the 
airline, they are also in the interest of all Americans in this modern 
society.
  Time really is money. Flights are often canceled or delayed for 
economic reasons, and not for mechanical or weather-related reasons. 
And when these economic delays or cancellations occur, it's usually 
rural America that gets the short end of the stick.
  This is no secret. Domestic airlines sometimes have delays not only 
for mechanical reasons, not only for reasons caused by air traffic 
controllers, not only for weather reasons, but for purely economic 
reasons. They do not want that plane to go because it is not filled up 
enough; it is not economical enough. The airlines do not have to tell 
you that.
  I have the headline of an article written by Christene Meyers from 
the front page of the Billings Gazette last week. The headline reads: 
``Enduring Plane Misery, Montana Air Passengers Often Grounded by 
Economics.''
  Let me read you a hypothetical situation from the article, a 
situation that is not so hypothetical and is happening with increasing 
frequency:

       You fly out of Los Angeles at 6:10 p.m., arriving at Salt 
     Lake City at 9 p.m., a minute earlier than estimated. You are 
     delighted and hurry to your gate, to catch the last flight to 
     Billings.

  It happens all the time.

       You watch, astonished, as the Billings plane is moved from 
     the gate. You're told that your flight is canceled. You're 
     told that your plane has a mechanical problem.

  How often have we heard ``mechanical problems'' given to us by the 
airlines as the problem?

       Further investigation discloses that the ``mechanical 
     problem'' business was untrue. Truth is your perfectly 
     functional plane was appropriated for a larger market. There 
     were fewer people going to Billings than going to San Diego. 
     You overnight from Salt Lake City and arrive the next day in 
     Billings--12\1/2\ hours late.

  That is if you are lucky because very often the next plane is booked; 
the next flight after that is booked; the next flight after that is 
booked; the next flight after that is booked.

  I am not giving you isolated instances; this happens often in 
Montana. Montana depends primarily on two major carriers. When a flight 
is canceled or excessively delayed, there are big consequences. That 
flight may have been your only chance to get in or out of Montana that 
day. Again, the plane is not there. It is canceled. You say: OK. Book 
me on the next flight the next day.
  Sorry. It is all booked up. It is overbooked.
  Book me on the next flight.
  Sorry. Can't.
  I have talked to people in my State who had to wait 4 days--4 days--
at Salt Lake City waiting for the next available flight. The same 
occurs in Minneapolis. People tell me they are there with several other 
people trying to get on a plane from Salt Lake City, and they say: 
Well, gee, why can't we just rent a car? Can Delta Airlines pay for the 
car rental? We'll drive from Salt Lake City to our home in Bozeman.
  No. Sorry. It is against airline policy to do that.
  So people frequently have to take another flight to another city in 
Montana and then drive or make some other connection. That is not 
uncommon.
  Further into this article, a Delta agent from Salt Lake states:

       If we have 40 people waiting for a flight for Billings and 
     120 waiting to go to San Francisco, it's a no-brainer. . . . 
     It costs less for us to put 30 people up and send them on to 
     Billings than it does to send 100 California-bound people to 
     a hotel.

  It is economics. That is wrong. That is not fair. That is not right. 
If flights are canceled for economic reasons, passengers deserve to 
know the truth. Let's not fool ourselves. This is not just an 
inconvenience for rural America; it is much more than an inconvenience. 
There is also a very direct, strong economic impact.
  As my home State of Montana, my neighbors in North and South Dakota 
and Wyoming and Idaho can attest, what business is going to relocate to 
an area where flight service is not reliable? It is a very basic 
question. There is a pretty obvious answer. Businesses around the 
country are going to think twice if reliable flight service cannot be 
guaranteed.
  There are delays and cancellations in other parts of the country, but 
here is the difference. In other parts of the country, in urban parts 
of the country, there are other flights, there are other airlines; not 
so for Montana, for the Dakotas, and for Wyoming. There are not that 
many daily flights, and because the flights have less economic benefit, 
airlines often cancel flights for economic reasons; and it is not 
right.
  Montana ranks near the bottom of per capita individual income right 
now. I am not saying it is because of airlines, but I am saying it is a 
factor which tends to discourage businesses from locating or expanding 
in Montana. How can we improve if we cannot guarantee a minimum 
standard of quality air service? This is not just a matter of 
inconvenience; it is a matter of jobs. It is a matter of income.
  My amendment simply requires that airlines provide all flight 
information that they currently report and specify the reason why these 
flights were delayed or canceled. Today, airlines must provide to the 
Department of Transportation on a monthly basis if an airline flight is 
delayed, either on arrival or departure. They do not have to give the 
reasons. They have to disclose that fact.
  So I am suggesting--not that they have to write a whole big book on 
the reasons for the cancellations or the reasons for the delays--that 
they just say why. What caused the cancellation? What caused the delay?
  So in addition to the information shown on the left-hand side of this 
chart: the name of the airline; the flight number; the aircraft tail 
number; the origin and destination airport codes; and the date and day 
of week of flight--but that in addition--it can also indicate whether 
the cancellation or delay was caused by air traffic control, caused by 
mechanical failure or

[[Page S11859]]

difficulty, caused by an act of God, caused by weather, or caused by 
economics.

  It is a very simple amendment. It does not regulate airlines. It is 
not imposing new regulations; it is just simply a matter of 
disclosure--simply giving the reasons why an airline flight is delayed 
over 15 minutes or just outright canceled.
  I realize that simply reporting the reasons for cancellations and 
delays is not going to stop the practice of delaying and canceling 
flights for economic reasons because airlines are businesses. They may 
still want to go ahead and cancel or delay a flight for economic 
reasons. But I do think the public has the right to know the reason for 
the cancellation or the delay.
  If airlines have to start reporting the reasons for missed 
connections and disrupted lives, consumers will soon see that rural 
America is grounded so that the rest of the country can go about its 
business.
  It may turn out that as a consequence there will be fewer 
cancellations for economic reasons. That is very much my hope, because 
for many parts of the country, particularly rural America, the 
airlines' actions are having a disproportionately adverse effect in 
parts of the country that don't have as much airline service as other 
parts of the country.
  That is my amendment. I see one Senator on the floor. I do not know 
if he will speak to it or not, but I don't see him jumping up in his 
chair.
  Madam 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. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside.


                           Amendment No. 1899

 (Purpose: To provide for designation of at least one general aviation 
  airport from among the current or former military airports that are 
       eligible for certain grant funds, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for Mr. 
     Levin, for himself and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1899.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam 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.   . DESIGNATION OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT.

       Section 47118 is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``12'' and inserting ``15''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Designation of General Aviation Airport.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, at least 
     one of the airports designated under subsection (a) may be a 
     general aviation airport that is a former military 
     installation closed or realigned under a law described in 
     subsection (a)(1).''.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1899) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, for the Record, amendment No. 1899 
was cleared by the majority.
  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. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________