[Page: H389]---
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 31 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 31
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII or section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against the amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY), my very good friend, and say I am very happy to see him here, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me first begin here by commending both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, for their cooperation in making this first rule of the 106th Congress an open rule that will permit consideration of an important piece of legislation.
Specifically, this resolution makes in order H.R. 99, providing for the temporary extension of Federal Aviation Administration programs under, as I said, an open rule providing for one hour of general debate.
The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and numbered 1. The rule also contains several waivers that are necessary for the bill to be considered today.
The waivers of sections 302(f) and 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act are necessary because Congress did not adopt the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution and, pursuant to House Resolution 5, fiscal year 1999 budget allocations have not been published in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Also, the waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI is necessary because Title II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute was not part of the introduced bill. Title II is language for the Committee on Ways and Means that allows expenditures from the Aviation Trust Fund.
Finally, the waiver of clause 4(a) of rule XIII is needed because the report on H.R. 99 was not filed by the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure until yesterday.
Members who preprinted their amendments in the RECORD prior to their consideration will be given priority and recognition. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is authorized to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a very comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill, but there was not enough time to work through a conference with the other body. As a result, the omnibus appropriations bill passed last year contained only a 6-month extension of the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. That short-term extension expires on March 31 of this year.
In order to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the full House time to develop a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill this year, we need to extend the 6-month short-term authorization through the rest of this fiscal year. Without passage of H.R. 99, no new Airport Improvement Program grants can be issued after March 31. AIP grants fund a variety of airport safety and capacity-enhancing projects such as runway extensions, taxiway construction, and noise abatement projects. As more and more people fly every day, it is important to maintain the highest safety standards at our Nation's airports.
I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman SHUSTER) plans to bring to the House a comprehensive aviation reform bill later this year that will address many very important and complex issues. Those issues may range from whether to increase the number of airport slots at busy airports, to what kind of passenger protection provisions should be included, to how the Aviation Trust Fund should be handled. These complex issues cannot be fully addressed before the current AIP reauthorization expires. Passage of H.R. 99 provides Congress with enough time to produce a comprehensive aviation reform bill.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this very fair, balanced, and open rule and also the bipartisan FAA reauthorization legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Page: H390]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my dear friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Madam Speaker, I want to publicly congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my chairman, my dear friend, for bringing this totally open rule to the floor. May every one of his rules be as open as this, Madam Speaker. It is a great, great start.
Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a bill to improve our airports. Unfortunately, the Senate did not pass a similar bill. If we do not pass this bill, the Federal Aviation Administration will not be able to issue grants after March 31 of this year.
That will mean, Madam Speaker, that the much-needed airport construction that is already under way will have to stop, and the new expansion and improvement of programs will just not get off the ground.
Madam Speaker, according to the Air Transport Association, the United States had 605 million airline passengers in 1997. In 1998 we had about 2 million passengers a day. In the next 10 years, Madam Speaker, that number is expected to increase to 1 billion people flying in and out of our airports each year.
The airline delays in this country's 18,000 airports cost the airline industry about $2.5 billion each and every year. Most of that ends up as ticket costs for consumers.
In 1997 the U.S. airlines placed orders and options for orders for nearly 1,400 new aircraft. That is a lot more planes and a lot more congestion. It is estimated that it will cost about $8 billion a year to pay for our airport development needs caused in part by these new planes.
[Time: 11:15]
Madam Speaker, many of our airports are just not equipped to handle the growing crowds. As anyone who has faced a late airplane or an overcrowded airport can tell us, our airports need work. They need a lot of work.
We need to get our airport safety systems up to date. We need to make our airports bigger. We need to update our traffic control systems. This bill will make all that happen.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues tell me that the House will take up the regular FAA improvement bill later this year, but we need to pass this temporary bill today in order to make sure construction proceeds in the interim. Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we will miss the construction season and delay these long overdue improvements even further.
Madam Speaker, there is very little opposition to this bill. It was reported out of committee by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very open rule and the accompanying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE), the very energetic, hardworking and peripatetic chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who is eager to address this issue.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the powerful chairman of the powerful Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I will limit my gratitude until I look up the word ``peripatetic.'' I may or may not amplify that. In any event, it is a pleasure to be here with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY) who is a longtime friend and a great legislator, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LIPINSKI) who is also a longtime friend and a great legislator.
Madam Speaker, I speak in support of H.R. 99, a bill to extend the authorization for certain Federal Aviation Administration programs for 6 months, through September 30, 1999. However, I want to stress my support for H.R. 99 extends only to the bill as currently drafted.
My concern is that if H.R. 99 passes the House, it might become a vehicle to go to conference on a much broader bill from the other body. If that were to happen, many important aviation issues, including the addition of slots to the four slot-controlled airports, might come back in a conference report without any opportunity for House amendments. I have raised this concern with the Speaker, the majority leader and the majority whip. It is my understanding they will not allow H.R. 99 to become a vehicle for such a broader conference. With that understanding, I am certainly willing to support H.R. 99 so that the FAA's authorization will not expire at the end of March. Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the cooperation of each of our three leaders in clarifying this matter so this important legislation can move forward.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I urge support of this rule.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. EMERSON). Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DREIER). Pursuant to House Resolution 31 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 99.
[Time: 11:19]
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mrs. EMERSON in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER).
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. It is a very simple bill which extends the Airport Improvement Program because it was reauthorized for only 6 months last year. As a result, the FAA's Airport Improvement Program funding is set to expire on March 31. If that were to happen, there would be no funds available for very, very important airport safety and capacity improvement projects, such as runway extensions and taxiway constructions. Already aviation delays cost the industry billions of dollars. In fact, in 1997 delays cost the carriers $2.4 billion which, of course, gets translated into costs that are imposed ultimately upon the traveling public and the aviation passengers. So it is very important that this legislation, this simple extension, be passed.
We indeed do intend to bring to the floor major legislation later in the year. That is not what we have here today. All we have here today is a simple extension. I would point out that the AIP contract authority authorized by this legislation is fully consistent with the CBO baseline for this program as well as the 6-month contract authority established in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. I would strongly urge support for this important legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging swift passage of H.R. 99, and I want to compliment him for making this the top issue of the committee's agenda in this Congress. He rightly saw at the conclusion of the 105th Congress that, as we dealt so masterfully under his gifted and vigorous leadership with the surface transportation needs of this country, that our next focus had to be the Nation's airways and airports. This simple 6-month extension is, in a sense, a down payment on the committee's commitment at the end of the last session and the beginning of this to address vigorously and in a broad, visionary concept the Nation's aviation requirements.
I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LIPINSKI) for
[Page: H391]
In bringing this bill to the floor, we in this, I think, very special way pay a tribute to women who have contributed so much to the growth of aviation and development of aviation in this country and perhaps suggest to the commercial airlines of the United States that they make as much room in the flight deck for women as general aviation has made room for women in that sector. Perhaps with this bill we can use the encouragement of the committee to advance the cause of careers for women in aviation.
At the close of the last session, it was a disappointment to our committee that we were not able to reach an agreement with the other body on a long-term reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program and all other aspects of aviation. We had hoped to reach an agreement, but numerous obstacles, including the one cited by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) just moments ago during consideration of the rule proved to be problems. So we bring to the House floor a very simple 6-month extension. But, as I said, it is a downpayment. It ensures, and I urge the other body to act quickly on this legislation, it ensures that after March 31 with signature of this bill into law, the funding for the FAA airport improvement grant program will be able to continue, that the investment plans of the Nation's airports will carry forward. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Illinois and I share this concern representing northern tier States. If we do not provide for the continued funding of the AIP program, surely contracts will be slowed down, airport projects in northern tier States will be slowed down. We cannot afford that. We have a very limited construction season. We need these projects to move ahead as quickly as possible. That is why this legislation is so vitally important.
Furthermore, I think we have to look at the broader picture of aviation and the significant impact of aviation on our national economy. It represents a $600 billion sector of our $7 trillion domestic economy. That is about 8 percent of our domestic economy that is driven directly by aviation. We can get multiples if we took secondary impacts. There are 1.5 million jobs just in the United States alone with a $100 billion payroll. But worldwide, the impact of air transport is in the range of $1.5 trillion. That is growing at a rate of 6 and 7 percent a year in international trade and passengers and cargo. Those economic gains, though, will be slowed down and the potential of aviation economic contribution to the domestic and international economy will be slowed down if we do not have the vision to pass this legislation and the broader bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the committee will bring to the floor in the next few months.
Congestion and weather are the two biggest enemies of efficient air travel. Weather is a factor in over half of the congestion cases that we experience in the course of a year. But inadequate infrastructure is the other contributing factor. Often these two issues converge. If we take an airport like Newark that has only a 950-foot separation between its two main runways, in worst weather conditions they can operate only one runway. If they had full separation of the required minimum mile between the two runways, even in the worst weather conditions they could operate both runways to the maximum possible permitted by their combination of air traffic control equipment and the ability to keep runway surfaces clear in snow and other conditions, icy conditions. But with runways that close together, they have to shut down one of them in worst weather conditions.
There are many other airports across this country that face the same problem. As we extend runways and widen the separation between runways, build more hard air side capacity, we increase the ability of our airports to serve the needs of airlines and air travelers.
In 1987, a year in which I chaired the oversight committee and held hearings on aviation capacity, the FAA estimated to our committee that there were 21 airports with delays of 20,000 hours a year and more. By 10 years later, within a decade, there were 27 such airports with 20 to 50,000 hours of delay a year. What does that mean to the airlines and to air travelers? Well, Delta Airlines cited traffic inefficiencies costing that carrier $360 million a year.
[Time: 11:30]
It adds up to several billions of dollars of cost to the airlines and to air travelers when they cannot reach their destinations in time or they get there and the gates are crowded, the aircraft cannot park at the gate. We have to respond to that situation.
The National Civil Aviation Review Commission found that, quote, although 19 out of 20 of the busiest airports in the world are in the United States, this Nation can no longer claim that it has the world's most modern air traffic control system.
The second aspect of aviation is the technology to increase capacity and make carrier movements more efficient. This legislation continues funding of the air traffic control technology side of aviation to improve capacity at the Nation's airports.
The hard fact is, though, that we are not meeting the on-the-ground requirements of runway extension, runway addition, taxiways and gate capacity at our Nation's airports.
According to GAO, even with the AIP funds included in this bill we are falling short of the airport capacity capital requirements of this country by as much as $3 billion a year. That is why we need to pass this bill now, give ourselves a little time to craft larger, broader legislation that will deal over the next decade with the capacity requirements of our Nation's airports and air travelers.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER), the chairman, for yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, last year, as has been pointed out by some of the previous speakers, a comprehensive FAA reauthorization package, H.R. 4057, passed the House and a companion bill was passed in the Senate.
Unfortunately, conference negotiations broke down and only a short-term six-month extension for the airport improvement program was passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill.
This bill, H.R. 99, would extend the FAA's airport improvement program and fund the FAA's operations and facilities equipment programs through the end of fiscal year 1999. The gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) has already explained the great importance of these programs, especially at a time of such rapid growth in both commercial passenger traffic and air cargo traffic.
Last year, we carried for the first time in history with not a single fatality, a single commercial air fatality, 615 million passengers. This year, that figure is scheduled to go up to 660 million and, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MOAKLEY) pointed out, to over a billion at some point in the very near future, certainly within the next decade.
With the passage of this bill, $10.3 billion for the FAA's program would be authorized for 1999. Also at the request of the House Committee on Ways and Means, we have added a provision to extend the general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. We are also planning to introduce a long-term comprehensive reauthorization bill, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) has pointed out, in conjunction with our attempt to take the trust fund off budget in H.R. 111.
In the comprehensive bill, we will attempt to take care of many of the requests we receive each year from Members concerning airport and aviation
[Page: H392]
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LIPINSKI), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LIPINKSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to say that I am sure that this year will be very interesting, very exciting and very productive for aviation in this Nation. I am sure behind the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN), that we will solve all the problems of aviation in this Nation and probably solve a few of them that extend beyond our boundaries.
Getting down to the specific legislation, which I rise in strong support of, H.R. 99, the AIP program is vital to airports of all sizes throughout the Nation. The AIP program provides grants to fund needed safety, security, capacity, in noise projects. Without H.R. 99, important airport projects will be disrupted and delayed.
For example, Midway Airport, which is located in my Congressional district, and which I consider to be the number one airport in all of Chicagoland, is beginning a multiyear, $722 million terminal development program, $138 million of which will be provided by the FAA's AIP program.
If the AIP program expires, Midway Airport will have to rely on other sources such as the PFC and rates and charges to fund the current phase of the terminal project which, more than likely, will increase costs for the future users of the terminal. In addition, the City of Chicago's Department of Aviation relies on the AIP program to fund noise mitigation projects. If the AIP program expires, schools around both O'Hare Airport and Midway Airport will have to wait another full year for badly needed sound insulation.
H.R. 99 is also needed to ensure that the AIP program receives the full $1.95 billion provided by the Omnibus Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1999. The omnibus bill provided $1.95 billion for the AIP program for fiscal year 1999. However, it also limited the amount of the AIP program that could actually be spent before March 31, 1999, to $975 million. The AIP program will be entitled to the full appropriated amount of $1.95 billion only if H.R. 99 is passed and the AIP program is authorized through the end of the fiscal year.
With the capital needs of airports estimated to be about $10 billion per year, we cannot afford to cut funding for the AIP program in half. If we do not pass H.R. 99, we will, in effect, cut funding for the AIP program in half for fiscal 1999.
Consequently, once again I rise in strong support along with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN) on behalf of H.R. 99.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I insert for the RECORD the correspondence between the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure regarding title II of the bill:
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
Washington, DC, January 28, 1999.
Hon. BUD
SHUSTER,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
DEAR BUD: I understand that on Thursday, January 6, 1999, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved H.R. 99, a bill providing for a 6-month extension of Federal Aviation Administration programs.
As you know, the Trust Fund Code includes specific provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means which govern trust fund expenditure authority and which limit purposes for which trust fund moneys may be spent. Statutorily, the Committee on Ways and Means generally has limited expenditures by cross-referencing provisions of authorizing legislation. Currently, the Trust Fund Code provisions allow expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund before October 1, 1998. Similarly, the Trust Fund Code approves all expenditures from the Airport and Airway trust fund permitted under previously enacted authorization Acts, most recently the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, as in effect on the date of enactment of the 1996 Act.
I now understand that you are seeking to have H.R. 99 considered by the House as early as the first week in February. In addition, I have been informed that your Committee will seek a Manager's or Committee amendment to the bill which will include language I am supplying (attached) to address the necessary trust fund provisions. The amendment would extend until October 1, 1999, the general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update the expenditure purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide that, generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue Code.
Based on this understanding, and in order to expedite consideration of this legislation, it will not be necessary for the Committee on Ways and Means to markup this legislation. This is being done with the further understanding that the Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means in the future.
Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 99, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be placed in the Record during consideration of the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance on this matter. With best personal regards.
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
(1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 1, 1999'', and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
(b) LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.--Section 9502 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO TRUST FUND.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive the application of this subsection.
``(2) EXCEPTION FOR PRIOR OBLIGATIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this section.''.
--
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1999.
Hon. BILL
ARCHER,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington,
DC.
DEAR BILL, Thank you for your recent letter regarding the bill, H.R. 99, providing for an extension of programs of the Federal Aviation Administration through the end of Fiscal Year 1999. You are correct that we are drafting a Manager's amendment for the House Floor debate. I appreciate your willingness to have us include in this amendment the necessary changes to the Trust Fund Code which governs trust fund expenditure authority. The amendment would extend until October 1, 1999, the general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update the expenditure purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide that, generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue Code. Attached is the amendment we plan to offer on the House Floor.
To accelerate the consideration of H.R. 99 on the House Floor, I appreciate your willingness to forego marking up this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee. Of course, I understand that your action under these circumstances should not affect the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar provisions in the future.
[Page: H393]
As you requested, I will be including a copy of your letter, and my reply in the RECORD during consideration of the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
With warm regards, I remain
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
--
Amendment to H.R. 99, AS REPORTED,
Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--Section 48103 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,205,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ``$2,410,000,000 for fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
(b) OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY.--Section 47104(c) is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND.--Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM TRUST FUND.--Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``FISCAL YEARS 1994-1998'' and inserting ``FISCAL YEARS 1994-2000''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
(c) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATING OR EXPENDING AMOUNTS.--Section 48108(c) of such title is amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2000''.
SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.
Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (g); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
(1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 1, 1999'', and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
(b) LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.--Section 9502 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO TRUST FUND.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive the application of this subsection.
``(2) EXCEPTION FOR PRIOR OBLIGATIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this section.''.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. EHLERS), a member of the committee.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, this bill is absolutely essential. The first portion, to extend the AIP program, is extremely important to local airports which are in the midst of planning and construction cycles. Since the current authorization expires in less than 60 days, if we do not pass this bill, these airports will be at a loss as to what to do and how to proceed. Airports have received only half of their normal grant money for this year, and if we do not pass this bill, they will not receive the remainder. Furthermore, since airport construction projects are unique and long-term, this shortfall will create serious problems for airport planners who have to schedule these projects in phases.
Beyond that, this bill gives us time to begin a larger debate about making sure that America's airport infrastructure and aviation systems are the best in the world. At this point, although I believe they are very good, they are slipping compared to the rest of the world. The debate about airport funding, safety, security and the aviation industry as a whole needs to start with this legislation.
Let me speak about one area in particular that I am acquainted with, and that is acquiring computers and planning the software and hardware for the new air traffic control system. In a very interesting study several years ago, then-Senator Cohen, who is currently Secretary of Defense, came to the startling realization that the present procurement policies for the Federal Government absolutely guarantee that every computer the Federal Government will buy is obsolete at the time it is purchased.
Now how is this possible? Because in the time it takes to go through the specifications procedure, the actual procurement and purchase procedure and follow all the required Federal guidelines, roughly two years will have elapsed--more likely three years. As everyone knows, according to Moore's law, computer speed doubles every 18 months, and it is generally acknowledged that after three years computers have lost their usefulness in the industrial realm. Although people may continue to use them longer, they are no longer optimizing their investment, and if it takes us three years to decide which computer to buy and then buy it, we are always buying obsolete computers.
We have tried to correct that in the case of the FAA a few years back by giving them more leeway in the procurement process, but it is still not enough. What FAA has done to try to get around this is to keep changing the specifications as they go along to ensure that they will have up-to-date computers and will have the advanced software needed to manage the new air traffic control system, the so-called free-flight system. It is not working very well, it is not working very efficiently, and I do not blame the FAA for this; I blame the requirements that are imposed on this agency, being subject to the requirements that all Federal agencies have to meet.
But we are struggling here with a situation where this is a rapidly evolving field, the airlines are progressing very rapidly, the air traffic control system must evolve as rapidly, and we must develop the best hardware and the best software to handle the complex air traffic control system of the future. We cannot do that under the current authorization, and I hope when we complete the extension of reauthorizing the FAA in this bill, that then we will have a good bill ready that will allow us to address all these handicaps, that will allow us to develop an air traffic control system and an FAA that is second to none in the world, that will indeed match the performance of our airlines and will match the performance that we expect from any agency that is regulating various industries. Then we will be a help and not a hindrance to the airline industry.
Once again I want everyone to understand clearly I am not castigating the current FAA administrator. She is doing a marvelous job. I am not castigating her staff. I am simply saying that we have to change the rules of the game and give them the flexibility they need. We made a great step a few years ago. We have to go further, and I hope, as we rewrite this bill, we will be able to do that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from the State of my birth, Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is making a very important statement, and I hope that Members are paying careful attention to the observations of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. EHLERS) about the complexities of contracting in the FAA for the requirements of our air traffic control system.
[Page: H394]
It is an issue that our former colleague, Mr. Clinger, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for many years, and with the gentleman's help, bringing his able scientific physics background to bear on this issue of keeping ahead of the technology, and impeded as we were, as the FAA is, by ancient contracting rules that were devised during the Civil War era for buying mules for the U.S. Army, still in place for acquiring air traffic control computer equipment. As the gentleman has observed, we need to simplify that process. Let us bend every effort as we proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. EHLERS) has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. EHLERS).
[Time: 11:45]
We will do this as we proceed with the broader authorization bill to make every effort to address that issue and to help the FAA complete its task of modernization of the air traffic control system. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important subject.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and would agree that computers change much more rapidly than mules. We must make sure that we have a top-flight system in operation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. ROTHMAN).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I am not a member of the committee, but I have been long supportive of the work of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in assuring a sound transportation infrastructure for our Nation. It is vital, not only to our Nation's present quality of life, but to the quality of life for our children.
I rise today in support of H.R. 99, but I would like to spend my moments here, if I might, talking about aircraft noise.
Aircraft engines make a lot of noise. They are loud, droning, and, in some cases, unbearable to be near. People living in major metropolitan areas where there are often several airports nearby have to live with this oppressive aircraft noise. It has an extremely negative impact on the quality of their lives and on their health.
In an attempt to address this problem, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 was enacted. This law requires jet aircraft to be equipped with newer technology, quieter Stage 3 engines by December 31, 1999. It ends the operation of the older, noisier, Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft engines.
As a result of that law, major commercial airliners have already phased out most of their Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft. But, unfortunately, the law exempted aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds.
Planes weighing less than 75,000 pounds are typically general aviation aircraft. However, even though these general aviation aircraft are smaller than commercial airliners, in most cases they are louder than commercial airliners, because most of them are still equipped with the Stage 2 or Stage 1 engines.
Therefore, air noise problems in our most densely populated areas in the United States will not go away unless we have an across-the-board elimination of Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft engines, including engines of all general aviation aircraft.
Let me give you an example. At Teterboro Airport, in New Jersey, in my district, Teterboro Airport has roughly 15 percent of the aircraft using Teterboro with the Stage 1 or Stage 2 aircraft, only 15 percent, but that 15 percent of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft account for 90 percent, 90 percent, of all the aircraft noise violations at the airport.
So, the solution: I am introducing the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act of 1999, which will close this loophole and prohibit the operation of all older, louder, Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft engines in the 20 largest metropolitan areas with the worst air-noise problems.
In heavy aircraft traffic areas, like New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Seattle, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Denver, the residents surrounding these airports are being continuously pounded with aircraft noise and they are demanding action. They need relief from aircraft noise now, and we must give them that relief now.
This legislation achieves a balance, the need for the aircraft noise relief for these residents living in our Nation's most congested areas, with the legitimate economic needs of small aircraft operators who need to land in smaller airports away from our Nation's largest cities.
I am hopeful that the leaders of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation will work with me to see that this legislation is included in the FAA's reauthorization bill.
I hope my colleagues will work with me to help provide aircraft noise relief, not only to my constituents, but to the millions of Americans all across this country who presently suffer from aircraft noise.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. GARY MILLER).
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99, the FAA Short Term Extension Act. I wish to congratulate the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman SHUSTER), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), the ranking member, the Subcommittee on Aviation chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman DUNCAN) and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LIPINSKI) in drafting this together on a bipartisan basis.
This bill is extremely important to Ontario International Airport, located in my district. H.R. 99 reauthorizes funding for the Airport Improvement Program through September 31, 1999, and makes several minor changes to FAA programs. Specifically, the measure authorizes $2.3 billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $7.8 billion for FAA operations, facilities and equipment.
The bill includes funding for airport improvements, air traffic control facilities and equipment, and the salaries and expenses of operating the FAA.
Finally, H.R. 99 includes funds for new radars, computers and navigation equipment that are needed to modernize the air traffic control system and ensure that air travel remains safe.
I ask my colleagues to pass this bill with their strong support.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. BROWN), a very valuable member of our committee.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill and to work with us to make this, what we are calling on the committee, the year of aviation. Last year was one of the safest years in American aviation history and I think that this administration, as well as this Congress, should be commended for taking part in this.
We have a lot of work to do this year, not only to maintain our safety record, but also in preparing our aviation system for the challenges of the 21st Century.
In my home state of Florida, aviation is a key part of our economy, which is heavily based on trade and tourism. In the next decade, Miami will handle 35 million passengers, Orlando 30 million, and Jacksonville will continue to be a key intermodal location for aviation, rail and shipping traffic. The grants and programs authorized in this bill, including the airport improvement programs, are critical for the health and safety of aviation in this country.
In addition to supporting this extension, I also support using aviation trust fund dollars for aviation purposes, and I look forward to making this the year of aviation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA).
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Chairman, I rise to commend the Members of the Committee on
[Page: H395]
My appreciation is enhanced, especially because there are no controversial provisions in this bill to add flights to our Nation's high density airports. There are no provisions to change the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. This legislation merely extends funding for the programs under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Administration, including the Airport Improvement Program.
In the Washington area, air service is extremely competitive. Consumers have a choice between three fine airports, and no one airline dominates air service in Washington, as is the case in many major cities.
This high level of competition exists in large part because of the slot and perimeter rules that are in effect at Reagan National Airport. Because of the slot and perimeter rules, the Washington area enjoys twice as many daily flights available from domestic destinations and a wider competitive choice than almost any other area in the country.
Changes in these rules would destroy the environmental and economic balance that exists among Reagan National Airport, Washington Dulles, and Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
The vote and perimeter rules were part of the good faith agreement among Federal, local and airport officials which promoted passage of the 1986 legislation that transferred control of National and Dulles from the FAA to a local authority, MWAA. The provisions have the effect of abating noise, and any changes would have a negative impact on the airport's neighbors in Maryland and Virginia.
Madam Chairman, the slot and perimeter rules are essential to the balance of service to the greater Metropolitan Washington region. I am grateful that H.R. 99 does not make any change to these essential flight limitations.
I urge a yes vote on this important legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. CROWLEY).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of the measure before us today. While I support the goal of the legislation and compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman SHUSTER) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), for their good work in moving expeditiously on this important authorization extension, I fear this measure will undergo substantial and dangerous changes in the other body or during conference.
Madam Chairman, I object to efforts to increase takeoff off and landing slots at existing high density airports, such as La Guardia in my district. As such, I strongly oppose any efforts to add language that would accomplish this goal.
As my colleagues may know, it is an open secret that legislation to increase takeoffs and landings at the Nation's four high density airports will likely be accepted in any conference on the FAA short term extension.
I would strongly encourage the chairman and ranking member not to go outside of the normal legislative process by adding in conference any legislation or proposals that would increase takeoffs and landings at the four high density airports. This is an issue which deserves to be considered separately on its own merits in a full and open debate.
Madam Chairman, increased competition in the airline industry, reduction of fares and expansion of the market to allow small, low fare airlines to compete with larger carriers are all worthy goals that deserve to be fully reviewed. And while I am not opposed to taking steps to increase competition in the airline industry, I cannot support efforts which would do so at the expense of the quality of life of my constituents and others who live and work near high density airports.
My Queens constituency, flanked to the north by La Guardia Airport and to the south by JFK International Airport, live under the most heavily-utilized section of air space in the world. How can this Congress in all good conscience mandate substantial increases in this already heavily burdened area?
Madam Chairman, while my constituents are primarily concerned about the excessive aircraft noise and associated ground traffic at La Guardia that they must deal with each and every day, morning, noon and night, they are also concerned about their safety and that of the traveling public. And in light of a number of near collisions at La Guardia Airport within the past year, it would seem that those concerns are not unwarranted.
Madam Chairman, for Congress to act at this time to mandate the allocation of even more slots at La Guardia and other high density airports would be, I believe, unconscionable. At the very least, the committee should have a full and thorough debate on this issue prior to acting on legislation to increase takeoffs and landings at these airports.
[Time: 12:00]
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from New York and our colleague from Illinois who addressed this matter previously during consideration of the rule.
We confronted this issue of slots in the 105th Congress, and we have had extensive discussion about this subject matter, and it is far more complex than appears on its face. The gentleman is right to express his concern that this issue should not be addressed in the context of this short-term extension. I would be vigorously opposed to any attempt to address the matter in the context of this bill, and I hope the gentleman will support the legislation with that understanding.
Certainly the issue of slots at the slot-controlled airports deserves far more extensive consideration than could possibly be given in the context of a short-term extension bill, and I know that the chairman shares that concern. We are not about to let this legislation be sidetracked by an issue of this magnitude, and I urge the gentleman to support our legislation.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of legislation extending Federal Aviation Administration programs an additional six months.
I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for taking quick action to ensure that Federal Aviation Administration programs, and the Airport Improvement Program in particular, will not expire at the end of next month.
I regret, however, that even with enactment of this legislation, two airports that are entitled to receive more than $20 million in Airport Improvement Program grants will still be unable to receive these funds.
In fact, more than $200 million in critical construction projects for National and Dulles Airports, funded in part with passenger facility charges (PFCs), are being held hostage pending resolution of the Aviation Competition Act.
At the center of this debate are the rights of one local authority pitted against some members of Congress who want to direct the operations of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
I was prepared to offer an amendment to release these funds and grant approval of the passenger facility charges, but recognize the desire of the Chairman and Ranking member to pass a ``clean'' FAA reauthorization bill.
I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns of the members from this region.
I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to keep the bill ``clean'' in conference.
I am deeply concerned about provisions in the Senate bill that take us a step back and bring controversy and invite opposition to this important legislation.
I am, of course, referring to provisions about to be considered by the Senate Commerce Committee that would increase the number of flights to the four slot controlled airports.
In the case of National Airport, the Senate legislation would add an additional 24 slots to this congested airport and lift the perimeter rule permitting half of these slots to fly beyond the current 1250 mile perimeter restriction.
Madam Chairman a change in the perimeter rule would result in a cut back in locations presently served by National within the perimeter and adversely affect the development of the Washington region's three commercial airports.
According to studies based on Washington air travel market data produced by the Washington Airports Task Force, every city with
[Page: H396]
Over time, short-range service at National would be displaced and the number of transcontinental flights operating out of Dulles would decline.
As those transcontinental flights decline, Dulles would cease to become an attractive destination for international service.
The growth and development plans overseen by Congress and the substantial investment made at both National and Dulles by the taxpayers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation community would become substantially devalued.
Madam Chairman, not a day goes by that someone's quality of life is not adversely affected by the constant drum of airplanes taking off and landing at National airport.
For their sake, we should not change the rules they have begrudgingly come to accept.
The balance that has now been struck between the transportation and economic needs of air travelers and the region's environmental concerns was crucial to community acceptance of the redevelopment of National, now nearing completion.
While these communities understand that National is here to stay, they should not be asked to endure additional noise when no compelling public need is served or could be addressed in other ways without altering the slot and perimeter rules.
Congress agreed in 1986 to cede control of National Airport to a regional authority who would have ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.''
In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.
Madam Chairman, the two states, the District and the regions' residents have upheld their part of the bargain.
It is time for Congress to honor its part.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99, the short-term extension of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is critical that we move forward with this bill quickly to ensure that the airport improvement program will continue to receive funding and grants to airports will be honored. In this, the Year of Aviation, we have much to consider and much to accomplish to make our skies even safer and air traffic more efficient and accessible. This short-term reauthorization will give this House and the Senate adequate time to more fully consider longer-term aviation authorization and competition issues. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I would like to take some time to talk about some of my concerns regarding H.R. 99, the FAA reauthorization legislation. I recognize that this bill funds some very important and critical programs, including operation and maintenance of the air traffic control system, safety inspections, and other Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) activities. It does an adequate job ensuring that our airports and airways are safe and efficient.
Madam Chairman, I've had personal experience with the FAA and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as a community activist, a state Senator, and now as a Member of Congress. In fact, I grew up about a mile from the Seattle/Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), so I know how people are affected by airports first hand.
The Port of Seattle has been attempting to expand SeaTac for more than nine years. Over those years, I've had several problems with the way the Port and the FAA have dealt with this proposed expansion project. I feel they have severely underestimated the environmental impacts the new runway would have on local communities, including the potential financial costs of implementation. They have also failed to adequately evaluate other potential problems, including increased traffic that would arise from construction and the increased noise expansion would have on local schools and neighborhoods. Overall, I strongly believe the FAA and the Port have shown a disregard for the concerns of the local citizens who will have to bear the brunt of the negative results of this proposed expansion.
Considering my experience with this program, I believe there are three things that could have been included in the legislation that would have made it better for those that live and work around our countries' airports. First, I have concerns over the current executive branch dealing with pollution from aircraft. The principle agency in the federal government that deals with environmental impact is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, when it comes to pollution resulting from aircraft it is the FAA. This wasn't always the case. Previously, the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the EPA was responsible for coordinating federal noise abatement activities, updating and developing new noise standards, and promoting research and education on the impacts of noise pollution. This office was eliminated in 1982. I believed the FAA has a strong disincentive for effectively handling aircraft pollution because their main function is to expand and promote aviation. On the other hand, the EPA is in a much better position to fairly analyze pollution from aircraft and thus effectively implement policy to deal with these impacts, because its chief objective is to protect people against dangerous environmental problems. I feel the bill should have transferred these powers from the FAA to EPA in order to properly study and better protect citizens in my district and others from aviation pollution.
Second, I would like to have seen the bill set aside more funds to directly compensate the public for the damage that it will have on their lives. A study has determined that the impact that the
proposed 3rd runway would have on my constituents is around $4 billion, but the plan by the Port includes only $50 million in mitigation costs. This is clearly unfair. The citizens of communities surrounding the airport would have to bear the brunt of mitigating the environmental problems surrounding the proposed project, despite having very little input and decision making authority. I feel that the bill could have authorized more money for the use of directly compensating individuals impacted by new construction for areas like my district.
Third, I'm very concerned about the lack of congressional and local input in the decision making authority for approving FAA discretionary grants for new airport construction. While I understand the meaning of a discretionary program is that the federal agency has the discretion in determining whether to appropriate the funds, I believe the current system so substantially displaces legislative input that it trumps the spirit of the separation of powers of our three branches of government, which is a critical part of our representative democracy. The Port of Seattle and the FAA negotiated a Record of Decision in July of 1997, despite serious objections from myself and my constituents. Our system is designed to have Members of Congress represent the concerns and interests of their home districts and thus executive decisions that impact a certain group of people should only be done with the consideration of the opinions of the Member who represents those people. I do not feel that my concerns have adequately been taken into consideration during this process, and I feel this is wrong.
Overall, I feel that the concerns of local citizens and thus Members of Congress who represent them are not sufficiently taken into consideration under the AIP, and will continue to advocate for changes to this program in the future. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and numbered 1 shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Pursuant to the rule, each section is considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or she has printed in the designated place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 101.
The text of section 101 is as follows:
SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--Section 48103 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,205,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ``$2,410,000,000 for fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
(b) OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY.--Section 47104(c) is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 101?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 102.
The text of section 102 is as follows:
SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 102?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 103.
The text of section 103 is as follows:
SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND.--Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: ``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM TRUST FUND.--Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``FISCAL YEARS 1994-1998'' and inserting ``FISCAL YEARS 1994-2000''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
(c) LIMITATIONS ON OBLIGATING OR EXPENDING AMOUNTS.--Section 48108(c) of such title is amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 103?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 104.
The text of section 104 is as follows:
SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.
Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (g); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 104?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 201.
The text of section 201 is as follows:
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
(1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 1, 1999'', and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
(b) LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.--Section 9502 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO TRUST FUND.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive the application of this subsection.
``(2) EXCEPTION FOR PRIOR OBLIGATIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this section.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 201?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. SHIMKUS) having assumed the chair, Mrs. EMERSON, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 31, she reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This vote will be followed by two 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408, nays 3, not voting 22, as follows:
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
[Page: H398]
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Obey
Paul
Smith (WA)
Cooksey
Delahunt
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Hall (OH)
Kasich
Lantos
Largent
Livingston
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Rogan
Rush
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Spence
Wilson
[Time: 12:23]
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote 9. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 99, the Federal Aviation Administration Short-Term Extension, I would have voted ``aye.''
END