[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1345-S1346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Specter, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 435. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the 
essential air service program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 12 other senators to 
introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 
2007. I am pleased again to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the 
principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time 
champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her 
continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Dorgan, 
Enzi, Collins, Hagel, Harkin, Schumer, Leahy, Levin, Specter, Ben 
Nelson, and Sanders are also cosponsors of the bill.
  Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to 
ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline 
deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, 
many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.
  Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the 
Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA 
reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities 
to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed 
mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air 
service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of 
the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I 
believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to 
receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in 
the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural 
communities.
  In response, every year since mandatory cost sharing was enacted 
Congress has blocked it from being implemented. Since 2003, a 
bipartisan group of senators have included language in each of the 
Department of Transportation's appropriations acts that bars the use of 
funds to implement the mandatory cost sharing program. Our bill would 
simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.
  All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to 
promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural 
areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads 
or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas 
frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For 
small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to 
the national and international transportation system.
  The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air 
service to over 100 communities in thirty-five States. EAS supports an 
additional 39 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and 
the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, 
particularly among commuter airlines, about 40 additional communities 
have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 
2001.
  In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for 
their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, 
Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case 
commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's business 
center and largest city.
  I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to 
continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time 
for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining 
tax revenues.
  As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements could 
affect communities in as many as 22 states. These communities could be 
forced to pay as much s $130,000 per year to maintain their current air 
service. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that 
could be affected are as follows:

       Alabama, Muscle Shoals; Arizona, Prescott, Kingman; 
     Arkansas, Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; California, 
     Merced, Visalia; Colorado, Pueblo; Georgia, Athens; Iowa, 
     Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas, Salina; Kentucky, Owensboro; 
     Maine, Augusta, Rockland; Maryland, Hagerstown; Michigan, 
     Iron Mt.; Mississippi, Laurel; Missouri, Joplin, Ft. Leonard 
     Wood; New Hampshire, Lebanon; New Mexico, Hobbs, Alamogordo, 
     Clovis; New York, Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh; 
     Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona, 
     Lancaster; South Dakota, Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee, 
     Jackson; Vermont, Rutland; West Virginia, Clarksburg/
     Fairmont, Morgantown.

  This year the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee 
will be taking up the reauthorization of aviation programs. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller 
and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service 
programs for rural areas. I do believe our bill is one important step 
in that process.
  As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the 
Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all 
commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital 
resources that help link rural communities to the national and global 
aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service 
program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service 
remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record 
opposing any mandatory cost sharing. I hope all senators will once 
again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator 
Bingaman, to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service 
Preservation Act. I am proud to join with Senator Bingaman, who has 
been a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service 
to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be 
deprived of any air service.
  I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's 
rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an 
imperative. It is a critical element of economic development, vital to 
move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have 
dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long 
held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline 
industry has had on small- and medium-size cities in rural areas, like 
Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small- and medium-size 
communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in 
flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More 
than 300 have lost air service altogether.
  This legislation will strike a detrimental provision in the 2003 
Federal Aviation Reauthorization. This provision, which would require 
communities to actually pay to continue to participate in a program 
that already acknowledges their economic hardship, is patently unfair. 
Ignoring the promise of the EAS, to protect these communities after 
deregulating the airlines in 1978, is not an option. Our colleagues 
have clearly greed with our position, as this provision has been struck 
down in every appropriations bill since the passage of the 2003 
reauthorization. Our bill would make this prohibition permanent.
  EAS-eligible communities typically have financial problems of their 
own and rely heavily on the program for economic development purposes. 
It is obvious to me, Senator Bingaman, and many of my colleagues, that 
if the 2003 proposal were enacted, it would mean the end of EAS service 
in dozens of cities and towns across the country. In Maine, which has 
four participants in the integral EAS program, we would suffer the 
possible loss of half of our EAS airports. In a small, rural State like 
Maine, such a reduction would be disastrous to our economy. That is why

[[Page S1346]]

I feel compelled to reintroduce this legislation.
  In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its 
strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater 
prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long 
run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much 
in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable 
access to air service. And that's why I strongly believe the Federal 
Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these 
communities in 1978 to safeguard their ability to continue commercial 
air service.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 435

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Essential Air Service 
     Preservation Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking section 41747, and 
     such title shall be applied as if such section 41747 had not 
     been enacted.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 41747.
                                 ______