FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act

Floor Speech

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about comments I have heard from both the chairman and the ranking member this morning about the FAA bill.

First of all, I wish to thank them for their hard work and diligence on this legislation. This hasn't just come now, this year; this is something the chairman and ranking member have been working on for several years.

I had a chance yesterday to talk about the NextGen system and how many jobs are going to be created from high-wage technology that is going to be used to modernize our transportation system. It is going to deliver flights that are probably 20 percent more on time, it will save us probably 5 or 6 percent on fuel, it is going to lower CO

2, and it is going to improve the experience for passengers. So I am all for the FAA underlying bill and I applaud my colleagues for their hard work in trying to make this legislation a reality and doing so this week.

I have concerns about the proposed Hutchison amendment. I know the Senator from Texas indicated she is still talking with people and working with people in an effort to make everyone happy. In this place I don't think we make everyone happy, but I thank the Senator for her willingness to at least on the floor say she is trying to make everyone happy, and I think she is probably sincere in her efforts.

I have been involved with this issue now for probably 3 or 4 years--not just the FAA bill but the slots issue and air transportation--and my former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, and I were involved with this issue and several years before that with numerous other members of the Commerce Committee. It is probably one of the thornier issues the Congress has to deal with, primarily because the issue is one that is fused both by issues of economic development around airports, as well as transportation interests of the flying public, and probably a little bit of a dose of what Members' own personal experiences and interests are.

For me, getting access to the West, to the Nation's capital, is an important issue. It is not the primary way I come to work every week. I actually fly in and out of the other airport in the region and do so--I don't know if I would say happily because, frankly, I think Dulles Airport--although I don't know what they have done lately, but they got rid of their mobile lounges and now have invested in some transport system where you probably walk as far on that system as you do on the previous system. There are people smiling on the floor. I think they have already been through it. I think they are saying, Yes, I have done that drill, and what is up at Dulles?

Putting that aside, that is the way I fly 80 percent of the time back and forth to the Nation's capital. I am pleased to have that flight schedule that accommodates me and actually accommodates many Washingtonians, because I think there are plenty of my Washingtonians who are coming back to the region to do business on a variety of issues in that corridor and see that as an access point as well.

The issue, though, is about whether the West has enough access to National Airport. In the past two debates we have had on this issue in 2000 and 2003, the Congress decided the West did not have enough access to National Airport. In both of those instances this body passed legislation opening more slots to the West through a process whereby the Department of Transportation basically decided what were the best areas of the West to service, which were the best networks to possibly service those areas, and how to get that traffic from one destination to the Nation's capital. In both instances, in 2000 and in 2003, when that very broad directive was given to the Department of Transportation, each time six new flight paths were opened to the Nation's capital, and I think that process worked very well. It worked very well because the debate was not here on the Senate floor about whose service was going to be delivered, but it was given to the Department of Transportation, the broad outline. In each instance, increasing access from the West to the Nation's capital is about having the flying public gain access to the Nation's capital and it is also about economic interests. That is why I still have concerns about this proposal on the table and about the fair access it may not provide to many people in the West.

In this particular proposal, unlike the two previous access issues in 2000 and 2003, in each point six new slots were given and the Department of Transportation had a fair and open process about it.

This particular proposal focuses on the airlines that already service the Nation's Capital, and in this case over 60 percent of the Nation's Capital slots are controlled by two specific airlines. This proposal would open those carriers's ability to trade out slots they already have with other cities, thereby giving them access to the West. In fact, the proposal of my colleague from Texas, even on those new slots, new incumbent carriers they are saying can give access to the West are carriers that are currently operating even inside the perimeter today. If you think this proposal is about helping access the West, it is primarily about accessing the West by people who already control the real estate at National Airport, which are two carriers.

I noticed the Department of Justice looked at this larger issue. That is because many of my colleagues who do not want to spend a lot of time on this--I guess I am glad I am educated on it, but I wish I had time to work on other things. The issue is, the national interest or policy question comes into play when you have access to what are limited footprint destinations, such as National Airport, such as La Guardia. Those are times when the U.S. Government has said we want to make sure there is a fair process about this because there is a small footprint and, obviously, if somebody controls too much of that footprint, it is an issue.

In the most recent debate, Delta and US Airways have been trying to do a swap exchange between La Guardia and DCA, and the Department of Justice says: Not such a good idea. You already own too much of the market share. If you want to do this, why don't you divest some of the slots you have now. Instead of doing that, the airlines are going to go down a path of continuing to accumulate and dominate in the East.

I hope my colleagues will take into consideration that I know the chairman and ranking member are trying to work in good faith, both on this issue and to move the bill forward. For this Member who wants to see a healthy transportation network, I am very concerned about the existing incumbents at National Airport continuing to dominate, with 60 percent of the market, and perhaps cancelling a lot of flights that they currently have now within this region only to benefit from the more lucrative long-haul flights across the country.

I am for a fair process. I think everybody should be able to bid on any new flights that are going to be put on the table. The two processes Congress followed in 2000 and 2003 were closer to what I believe, personally, is a more fair and open process.

I hope we can continue working and dialoging on these issues. I do think they are important. They are probably more important for the long run of what a transportation network system
looks like in this country, to be sure the consumer interests are taken care of and that there is a fair and competitive price.

I know some of the people who have been involved in this debate--probably not on the floor but out in the public--are talking about the amount of money airlines have invested in these airports, as if somehow that means they own the airports. The facts will show, in both these cases, the majority of money poured into the infrastructure at both these facilities is basically taxpayer dollars through bonding authority. It is not as if some airline owns the rights, owns the ability to control 50 or 60 percent of one of these airports just because they have paid for airport improvements. We all have been paying for airport improvements. As I said, I, personally, think the airport improvements made at Dulles are not so much of an improvement. I am going to continue with that and continue to fly through that particular airport.

I hope my colleagues will keep discussing this issue, and I hope we can get somewhere on it. My concern is that a proposal with conversion in it will mean many of my colleagues on the Senate floor will have their flights canceled to their favorite locations, and basically they will start servicing long-haul across the country with a very big share of the existing national market.

I hope we can do something that will instigate more competition, more diversity, and something that will help get this legislation passed.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source