PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See H.R.2739.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 1993
Amends the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to direct the Secretary of Transportation not to give consideration to the availability of slots (a reservation for an instrument flight rule takeoff or landing of an aircraft) at high density airports in determining the provision of basic essential air service to small communities and selecting an air carrier to provide such service. Requires the Secretary to ensure that a sufficient number of such slots are available to the air carrier providing such service at such airports, except at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, if the number of slots to and from such airport is at least 132. Provides for the transfer of slots at such airports.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.2739.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.469 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.469 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.469 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.469 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.