[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 6, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12096-S12097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HIGH DENSITY RULE

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, although I have serious reservations with 
respect to one or two provisions, I rise in support of the amendment by 
Senators Gorton and Rockefeller to replace the slot-related provisions 
in the bill.
  It won't surprise anyone to hear that my reservations primarily 
concern Reagan National. It is deeply regrettable that the amendment 
takes a step backward in terms of competitive access to Reagan 
National. The Commerce Committee overwhelmingly approved providing 48 
slot exemptions for more service. This amendment will cut that number 
in half. I understand that this bill may not have come to the floor if 
this compromise had not been made, but I certainly am not happy about 
it. Nevertheless, some additional access is better than none at all.
  The most frustrating aspect of this compromise is that the continued 
existence of slot and perimeter restrictions at Reagan National flies 
in the face of every independent analysis of the situation. To support 
my position, I can quote at length from reports by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), the National Research Council, and others, all 
of which conclude that slots and perimeter rules are anticompetitive, 
unfair, unneeded, and harmful to consumers. Despite the voluminous 
support for the fact that these restrictions are bad public policy, we 
allow them to continue.
  Reagan National should not receive special treatment just because it 
is located inside the Beltway. This amendment will already lead to the 
eventual elimination of the high density rule at O'Hare, Kennedy, and 
LaGuardia. If we believe it is good policy at those airports, why is it 
not the same for Reagan National? Arguments that opening up the airport 
to more service and competition will harm safety, exceed capacity, or 
adversely affect other airports in the region are without merit. The 
GAO recently concluded that the proposals in the committee-reported 
bill are well within capacity limits and would not significantly impact 
nearby airports. In addition, the DOT believes that increased flights 
would not be a safety risk.
  With any luck, the wisdom and benefits of increasing airline 
competition will eventually win out over narrow parochial interests. It 
saddens me to say that it will not happen today. Another opportunity to 
do the right thing by the traveling public is being missed.
  But my concerns about the Reagan National provisions do not in any 
way diminish my enthusiastic support for the other competition 
enhancing provisions in the bill. Eliminating the slot controls at the 
other restricted airports is a remarkable win for the principle of 
competition and for consumers. As GAO and others have repeatedly found, 
more competition leads to lower fares and better service. And in the 
interim, new entrants and small communities will benefit from enhanced 
access, which is more good news.
  I want to make our intent clear with respect to the provisions that 
govern the time period before the slot restrictions are lifted. We are 
providing additional access for new service to small communities and 
for new entrants and limited incumbent airlines. Because these airports 
are already dominated by the major airlines, which jealously hold on to 
slots to keep competitors out, we intentionally limited their ability 
to take advantage of the new opportunities.
  The amendment directs that Secretary of Transportation to treat 
commuter affiliates of the major airlines the same, for purposes of 
applying for slot exemptions and for gaining interim access to O'Hare. 
Let me be perfectly clear about what this provision means. It means the 
Secretary should consider commuter affiliates as new entrants or 
limited incumbents for purposes of applying for slot exemptions and 
interim access to O'Hare. A major airline should not be allowed to game 
the system and add to its hundreds of daily slots through its commuter 
affiliates and codeshare partners. Genuine new entrants and limited 
incumbents are startup airlines that cannot get competitive access to 
the high density markets.
  Many provisions in this amendment are just as that Senate approved 
them in last year's bill, so I will forgo a discussion of the various 
studies and other requirements that ensure people residing around these 
airports have their concerns addressed. Suffice it to say that the FAA 
and DOT will be very busy monitoring conditions in and around the four 
affected airports over the next few years. If these provisions begin 
having seriously adverse impacts, which I do not anticipate, we will 
certainly know about them.
  The benefits of airline deregulation have been proven time and again 
in

[[Page S12097]]

study after study. But the job that Congress started 20 years ago is 
incomplete. We still retain outdated controls over the market. Even 
worse, these controls work to the benefit of entrenched interests and 
to the detriment of consumers and competition. The sooner the Federal 
Government stops playing favorites in the industry the better off air 
travelers will be. The majority of provisions in this bill will get us 
closer to the goal of completing deregulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment and vote against 
any second degree amendment that might weaken its move toward a truly 
deregulated aviation system.

                          ____________________