True Competition Act

Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States.

In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world.

The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay

open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW.

Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense.

Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area.

I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world.

It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the True Competition Act which will resolve a longstanding debate about the status of Dallas Love Field Airport. This is a critical issue for those of us from States that depend on access to the Nation's air transportation network through hub airports in other States.

In the late 1960s the Federal Government expressed concern that it was funding three airports very closely located to each other in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It asked the local communities to build a single major airport to serve the entire region. The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, in consultation with the airlines serving the local airports, agreed to do so only under the condition that all three local airports be permanently closed to all commercial airline traffic. It was this agreement that resulted in the construction of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The legislation I propose today would return to the original intent of all the parties involved in the decision to build DFW International by closing Love Field to commercial air traffic. If enacted, competition at DFW will increase significantly. This will be good for consumers and it will be good for communities that used DFW as their access to the world.

The Federal statute that is central to this debate is the so-called Wright amendment. This was a law enacted in 1979 that allowed Love Field to stay

open for limited service despite the desire of the local communities to have it close. It was necessary because activist judges in Texas had ruled against the local government's intent to consolidate all air traffic at DFW.

Recently, legislation has been introduced that would completely reverse the agreement of the parties to limit Love Field to an airport serving short haul markets. This would return to the situation that was supposed be corrected 30 years ago. The runways of Love Field and DFW are 8 miles apart. To have two major, federally funded airports so close simply doesn't make sense.

Moreover, if flights are transferred from DFW to Love Field--as they surely would be if the Wright amendment is repealed--there will be fewer connecting opportunities at DFW for passengers from outside the north Texas area.

I understand that Southwest Airlines is lobbying strongly for repeal of the Wright amendment. I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Southwest and consider myself a good customer. But Southwest surely does not need the continued permanent home court advantage that the courts gave them years ago. Southwest operates very successfully at some of the most congested and high volume airports in the country. They have the skill and the resources to compete against any carrier at any airport. If they moved their operations to DFW, consumers and communities could have the best of all worlds--intense head-to-head competition between carriers and even more opportunities to travel throughout the world.

It is time to resolve this controversy once and for all by returning to the original intent of the parties.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drinking Water Security Act of 2005.

This bill would reauthorize a portion of the Safe Drinking Water Act, first enacted in 2002, that instructs the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by American drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists. My bill also would require EPA to report on its progress in developing and implementing these detection and response systems since 2002.

Like most Americans, I want to rise in the morning, make some coffee, and take a shower without worrying if that water has somehow been tampered with overnight by terrorists. Safe drinking water is something we traditionally have taken for granted in this country. This bill will continue the good work our scientists have been doing to monitor, detect, and negate any chemical, biological, or radiological agents that terrorists could introduce into our drinking water, should they manage to get past our physical security measures. This bill would also help implement appropriate warning systems in the event of a terrorist attack on our water systems.

I do not want to be an alarmist. But, September 11 changed Americans' views on the possibility of the improbable and turned our focus to preparedness. This bill is all about preparedness. It provides the authorization and oversight needed to continue to develop those tests and responses so we can stay one step ahead of potential terrorists.

I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense bill and ensuring that our drinking water remains safe.