John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Grassley as an original cosponsor of the Collins amendment No. 1907.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I look forward to working with him on this very important issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on the other side, and there is no further debate on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I understand his passion and commitment on this issue. On this particular issue, we simply have an honorable disagreement. He makes a very cogent argument, but with all due respect, I simply am not in agreement. I have a different view and perspective. He and I have debated this issue on a number of occasions in the past. I want to make a few additional points. Twelve new round-trip flights at Reagan National is barely acceptable to me. Because of Senator Robb's intense pressures and that of Senator Warner, and others, we have reduced it rather dramatically from what we had hoped to do. I know the Senator from Virginia knows I won't give up on this issue because of my belief. But 12 additional round-trip flights are simply not going to help, particularly the underserved airports all over America. The GAO has found on more than one occasion that significant barriers to competition still exist at several important airports, and both at Reagan National Airport are slot controls and the perimeter rule. The GAO is not the only one that assesses it that way. The National Research Council's Transportation Research Board recently issued its own report on competition in the airline industry. This independent group also found that ``the detrimental effects of slot controls on airline efficiency and competition are well-documented and are too far- reaching and significant to continue.'' Based on its finding, the Transportation Research Board recommended the early elimination of slot controls. They were equally critical of perimeter rules. As I mentioned during my opening statement, the GAO came out last month with another study confirming that Reagan National is fully capable of handling more flights without compromising safety or creating significant aircraft delays. In fact, language in the bill requires that any additional flights would have to clear the Department of Transportation's assessment so far as any impact on safety. The GAO demonstrates that their arguments against these modest changes are not persuasive. I regret this legislation doesn't do more to promote competition at Reagan National Airport. I earlier read a statement from one of Senator Robb's constituents who alleged that he could not afford flights out of Reagan National Airport. Also, I got another letter that was sent to the FAA aviation noise ombudsman and printed in his annual activity report. The noise ombudsman deals almost entirely with complaints about noise. The relevant section of that report reads as follows: Very few citizens who are not annoyed by airplane noise take the time to publicly or privately voice an opinion. The Ombudsman received a written opinion from one such residence in the area south of National Airport which said: Recently, someone left a ``flyer'' in my mailbox urging that I contact you to complain about aircraft noise into and out of the airport. I am going to follow her format point by point. I have lived in (the area) for 35 years. I have not experienced any increase in aircraft noise. I have noticed a reduction in the loudness of the planes during that time. That makes sense, Mr. President, since aircraft engines are quieter and quieter. The citizen says: I do not observe aircraft flying lower. I have not observed more aircraft following one another more closely. I have not noticed the aircraft turning closer to the airport as opposed to ``down river.'' My quality of life has not significantly been reduced by aircraft noise. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s, the noise was much louder. I am not concerned about property values due to the level of aircraft noise. I would be very concerned if there were no noise because it would mean the airport was closed. A closure of the airport would make my neighborhood less desirable to me and to many thousands of others who like the convenience of Reagan National Airport. I am concerned about safety and environmental impacts, as everybody should be; but Reagan National Airport has a good safety record and the environmental impact is no greater here than elsewhere. I have not heard any recent neighborhood ``upset''' about the increase in airport noise. Reagan National Airport is the most convenient airport that I have ever been in. I hope you will do more to expand its benefit by expanding the range of flights in and out of it. This is certainly another resident of Northern Virginia who has, in my view, the proper perspective. Most local residents don't get motivated to write such letters as the one I just read. Apparently, there are those who drop flyers in mailboxes asking people to write and complain. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. First of all, the gentleman said 1960s and 1970s--not just 1960s, 1970s. He said the noise was much louder in the 1970s. In a report to Congress recently, Secretary Rodney Slater announced that the Nation's commercial jet aircraft fleet is the quietest in history and will continue to achieve record low noise levels into the next century. Obviously, with stage 3 aircraft, that noise would be dramatically lessened, thank God. I hope there is going to be a stage 4 that will make it even quieter. Clearly, it is not, because actually the number of flights have been reduced at Reagan National Airport since the perimeter rule and the slot controls were put in--because, as the Senator knows, the major airlines aren't making full use of those slots as they are really required to do by, if not the letter of the law, certainly the intent of the law. I remind the Senator, the requirement is they all be stage 3 aircraft. New flights would have to be stage 4 aircraft. The Senator just pointed out how stage 3 aircraft are much quieter. They would have to meet any safety studies done by the DOT before any additional flights were allowed. Again, the GAO and the Department of Transportation--literally every objective organization that observes the situation at Reagan National Airport--say that increase in flights is called for. The perimeter rule, which was put in in a purely blatant political move, as we all know--coincidentally, the perimeter rule reaches the western edge of the runway at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. We all know who the majority leader of the House was at that time. We all know it has been a great boon to the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. Why wasn't it in Jackson, MS? I think if my dear friend, the majority leader, had been there at the time, perhaps it might have. But the fact is that the perimeter rule was artificially imposed for restraint. The Senator knows that as well as I do. But back to his question, again, the GAO, the DOT, the Aviation Commission, and every other one indicate clearly that this is called for. I want to remind the Senator. I do with some embarrassment--12 additional flights, 12 additional round-trip flights? I think my dear friend from Virginia doth protest too much.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gorton, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 1892 offered yesterday by Senator Gorton and ask that it be considered.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon. I know he has been heavily involved in this issue for a long time. We will have the Coast Guard bill scheduled for markup. At that time, I hope the Senator from Oregon will be able to propose an amendment addressing this issue. But I also remind my friend that there may be objection within the committee as well. I know he fully appreciates that. There is at least one other Senator who doesn't agree with this remedy. But I think we should bring up this issue and it should be debated and voted on. I think certainly the Senator from Oregon has the argument on his side in this issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk, one by Senator Helms, which is a second-degree amendment to the Gorton amendment No. 1892, an amendment by Senator Boxer, and an amendment by Senator Inhofe. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his steadfast advocacy for airline passengers and a range of other issues. I believe he has done this Nation a great service by attempting to see that airline passengers have certain fundamental benefits that most Americans assume they already had before certain information became known to them and to the Senate. I thank him very much. It appears to be a very good amendment. It has not been cleared yet by Senator Rockefeller. They still have some people with whom they have to talk. I have every confidence we will accept the amendment. I ask that the Senator from Oregon withhold his amendment at this time until we are ready to accept it.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to respond very quickly. Does the Senator want an up-or-down vote on this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to ask the majority leader. Perhaps we can schedule it right after the lunch along with the other votes. I will ask the majority leader when he finishes his conversation. We are about to break for the lunch period. Would the majority leader agree to an up-or-down vote as part of the votes that are going to take place after the lunch?

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, the fact is, the Senator has been involved in discussions in the Cloakroom, on the floor, in my office, and other places on this issue. If we don't agree, that is one thing, but to say somehow that my attention has been diverted is an inaccurate depiction of the situation.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to. Could I just very briefly respond. We have been down this track many times. Delays are due to the air traffic control system, and obviously our focus and the reason why we have to pass this bill is to increase the capability of the air traffic control system. Deals are made all the time, my dear friend. The people of Arizona weren't consulted. The people of California weren't consulted. It was a deal made behind closed doors, which is the most unpleasant aspect of the way we do business around here, where people were artificially discriminated against because they happened to live west of the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. It is an inequity, and it is unfair and should be fixed.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey for his comments, and reassure him that it is the Committee's hope that the funding included in this legislation will allow us to finish the National Airspace Re-Design more expeditiously, including the ongoing effort in the Eastern Triangle.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hear and share the views of my colleagues on this issue. Clearly, I have been tasked by the Senate and the Leader with successfully completing a conference with the House on multi-year aviation reauthorization legislation. I, too, oppose any change in budgetary treatment of the aviation accounts.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been agreed to by both sides. There is no further debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 2265 (Purpose: To make available funds for Georgia's regional airport enhancement program)

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I respect the right of my friend from New York. In behalf of the Senator from Connecticut, who is waiting, we have pending business we are trying to finish today. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be allowed to speak for 3 minutes. Hopefully, we can move on.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I ask for recognition.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, prior to the Senator from New York being recognized, I ask unanimous consent the vote on or in relation to the Robb amendment be postponed, to occur in the next stacked sequence of votes, and, prior to the vote, Senators Robb, Warner, Bryan, and McCain be given 5 minutes each for closing remarks and that the amendment now be laid aside.