[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1993
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to consideration of the bill introduced earlier by myself
to provide temporary obligational authority for the airport improvement
program and to provide for certain airport fees to be maintained at
existing levels for up to 60 days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1491) to amend the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 to authorize appropriations,
and for other purposes, which was reported from the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation with an amendment to strike out
all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1993''.
SEC. 2. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Authorization.--The second sentence of section 505(a)
of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App.
U.S.C. 2204(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' immediately after ``1992,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $18,016,700,000 for fiscal years
ending before October 1, 1994'' immediately before the period
at the end.
(b) Discretionary Fund.--Section 505(a) of the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2204(a)) is
further amended by inserting immediately after the second
sentence the following new sentence: ``If the obligation
limitation on the amount made available under this subsection
for fiscal year 1994 is less than $1,800,000,000 and not less
than $1,700,000,000, then $50,000,000 of such amount shall be
credited to the discretionary fund established by section
507(c), without apportionment and without regard to the
distribution requirements of sections 507 and 508; and if the
obligation limitation on the amount made available under this
subsection for fiscal year 1994 is less than $1,700,000,000,
then $100,000,000 of such amount shall be credited to such
discretionary fund, without apportionment and without regard
to the distribution requirements of sections 507 and 508.''.
(c) Obligational Authority.--Section 505(b)(1) of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C.
2204(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``1993'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``1994''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.
Section 503(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2202(a)(2)(B)(ii)) is
amended by inserting ``(including explosive detection
devices) and universal access systems'' immediately after
``safety or security equipment''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE LETTERS OF INTENT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Transportation may issue letters of intent under section
513(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49
App. U.S.C. 2212(d)) and use Airport Improvement Program
funds for planning, approving, and administering such letters
of intent.
SEC. 5. LANDING AIDS AND NAVIGATIONAL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
POOL.
Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(a)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4) Landing aids and navigational equipment inventory
pool.--
``(A) Establishment of program.--Not later than December
31, 1993, and notwithstanding any other provision of this
title, the Secretary shall establish and implement a program
to purchase and reserve an inventory of precision approach
instrument landing system equipment, to be made available on
an expedited basis for installation at airports.
``(B) Authorization.--No less than $30,000,000 of the
amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) for each of the
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 shall be available for the purpose
of carrying out this paragraph, including acquisition, site
preparation work, installation, and related expenditures.''.
SEC. 6. MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEM.
Section 506(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2205(a)), as amended by this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Microwave landing system.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the amounts appropriated under this
subsection may be used for the development or procurement of
the microwave landing system, except as necessary to meet
obligations of the Government that may arise under contracts
in effect on January 1, 1994.''.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN AVIATION AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 313 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1354) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(g) Assistance to Foreign Aviation Authorities.--The
Administrator may provide safety-related training and
operational services to foreign aviation authorities with or
without reimbursement, if the Administrator determines that
providing such services promotes aviation safety. To the
extent practicable, air travel reimbursed under this
subsection shall be conducted on United States air
carriers.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end
of the item relating to section 313 the following:
``(g) Assistance to foreign aviation authorities.''.
SEC. 8. FOREIGN FEE COLLECTION.
Section 313(f) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App.
U.S.C. 1354(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting immediately after paragraph (2) the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Recovery of cost of foreign aviation services.--
``(A) Establishment of fees.--Notwithstanding the
limitation of paragraph (4), the Administrator may establish
and collect fees for providing or carrying out the following
aviation services outside the United States: any test,
authorization, certificate, permit, rating, evaluation,
approval, inspection, or review. Such fees shall be
established as necessary to recover the additional cost of
providing or carrying out such services outside the United
States, as compared to the cost of providing or carrying out
such services within the United States. The provisions of
this paragraph do not limit the Administrator's authority to
establish and collect fees permitted under section 334 of
title 49, United States Code.
``(B) Crediting of preestablished fees.--Fees described in
subparagraph (A) that were not established before the date of
enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1993 may be credited in accordance with
paragraph (5).''.
SEC. 9. REVIEW OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall conduct a review of the Federal Aviation
Administration's personnel administration, procurement
process, and overall organizational structure. The
Administrator shall, not later than March 30, 1994, report on
the results of the review to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 10. REPEAL OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.
Section 401 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
of 1979 (Public Law 96-193; 94 Stat. 57) is repealed.
SEC. 11. DISCONTINUATION OF AVIATION SAFETY JOURNAL.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not publish, nor contract with any other organization for
the publication of, the magazine known as the ``Aviation
Safety Journal''. Any existing contract for publication of
the magazine shall be cancelled within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 12. ACCESS OF FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS TO HIGH DENSITY
AIRPORTS.
(a) In General.--Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 420. ACCESS OF FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS TO HIGH DENSITY
AIRPORTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall not take a slot at a
high density airport from an air carrier and award such slot
to a foreign air carrier if the Secretary determines that air
carriers are not provided equivalent rights of access to
airports in the country of which such foreign air carrier is
a citizen.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) High density airport.--The term `high density
airport' means an airport at which the Administrator limits
the number of instrument flight rule takeoffs and landings of
an aircraft.
``(2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``(3) Slot.--The term `slot' means a reservation, by an air
carrier at an airport, for an instrument flight rule takeoff
or landing of an aircraft in air transportation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The portion of the table of
contents of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 relating to
title IV is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 420. Access of foreign air carriers to high density airports.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Definitions.''.
SEC. 13. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.
(a) In General.--(1) Title IV of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), as amended by this
Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 421. AIR SERVICE TERMINATION NOTICE.
``(a) In General.--An air carrier may not terminate air
transportation from a nonhub airport included on the
Secretary's latest published list of such airports, unless
such air carrier has given the Secretary at least 60 days'
notice before such termination.
``(b) Exceptions.--The Secretary shall not apply the
requirements of subsection (a) when--
``(1) the carrier involved is experiencing a sudden or
unforeseen financial emergency, including natural weather-
related emergencies, equipment-related emergencies, and
strikes;
``(2) the termination of transportation is made for
seasonal purposes only;
``(3) the transportation subject to termination is a new
service and the termination is made pursuant to an agreement
between the carrier and the local airport authority
concerning the circumstances under which the new service may
be terminated;
``(4) the carrier involved provides other transportation by
jet from another airport serving the same community as the
affected nonhub airport; or
``(5) the carrier involved makes alternative arrangements,
such as a change of aircraft size, or other types of
arrangements with a part 121 or part 135 air carrier, that
continues uninterrupted service from the affected nonhub
airport.
``(c) Waivers for Regional/Commuter Carriers.--Prior to
April 1, 1994, the Secretary shall establish terms and
conditions under which regional/commuter carriers can be
excluded from the termination notice requirement.
``(d) Definitions.-- For purposes of this section--
``(1) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' has the
meaning that term has under section 419(k)(4).
``(2) Part 121 air carrier.--The term `part 121 air
carrier' means an air carrier to which part 121 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
``(3) Part 135 air carrier.--The term `part 135 air
carrier' means an air carrier to which part 135 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, applies.
``(4) Regional/commuter carriers.--The term `regional/
commuter carrier' means--
``(A) a part 135 air carrier; or
``(B) a part 121 air carrier that provides air
transportation exclusively with aircraft having a seating
capacity of no more than 70 passengers.
``(5) Termination.--The term `termination' means the
cessation of all service at an airport by an air carrier.''.
(2) The portion of the table of contents of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 relating to title IV, as amended by this
Act, is further amended by inserting immediately after the
item relating to section 420 the following new item:
``Sec. 421. Air service termination notice.
``(a) In general.
``(b) Exceptions.
``(c) Waivers for regional/commuter carriers.
``(d) Definitions.''.
(b) Civil Penalties.--Section 901(a)(1) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1471(a)(1)) is amended
by inserting ``section 421 or'' immediately after ``$10,000
for each violation of''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective beginning on April 1, 1994.
SEC. 14. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR RESEARCH, ENGINEERING,
AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 312 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1353) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(j) Cooperative Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into cooperative agreements on a cost-shared basis with
Federal and non-Federal entities that the Administrator may
select in order to conduct, encourage, and promote aviation
research, engineering, and development, including the
development of prototypes and demonstration models.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end
of the item relating to section 312 the following:
``(j) Cooperative agreements.''.
SEC. 15. SAFETY OF JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
(a) Study.--(1) Within 30 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation
with the National Transportation Safety Board, the National
Guard, and the Juneau International Airport, shall undertake
a study of the safety of the approaches to the Juneau
International Airport.
(2) Such study shall examine--
(A) the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 1866 on September
4, 1971;
(B) the crash of a Lear Jet on October 22, 1985;
(C) the crash of an Alaska Army National Guard aircraft on
November 12, 1992;
(D) the adequacy of NAVAIDS in the vicinity of the Juneau
International Airport;
(E) the possibility of confusion between the Sisters Island
directional beacon and the Coghlan Island directional beacon;
(F) the need for a singular Approach Surveillance Radar
site on top of Heintzleman Ridge;
(G) the need for a Terminal Very High Frequency Omni-
Directional Range (Terminal VOR) navigational aid in
Gastineau Channel; and
(H) any other matters any of the parties named in paragraph
(1) think appropriate to the safety of aircraft approaching
or leaving the Juneau International Airport.
(b) Report.--(1) Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives a
report which--
(A) details the matters considered by the study;
(B) summarizes any conclusions reached by the participants
in the study;
(C) proposes specific recommendations to improve or enhance
the safety of aircraft approaching or leaving the Juneau
International Airport, or contains a detailed explanation of
why no recommendations are being proposed;
(D) estimates the cost of any proposed recommendations; and
(E) includes any other matters the Secretary deems
appropriate.
(2) The report shall include any minority views if
consensus is not reached among the parties listed in
subsection (a)(1).
SEC. 16. SOLDOTNA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.
(a) Release.--Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal
Airport Act (as in effect on December 12, 1963), the
Secretary of Transportation is authorized, subject to the
provisions of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50
App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions of subsection (b) of
this section, to grant releases from any of the terms,
conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the
deed of conveyance dated December 12, 1963, under which the
United States conveyed certain property to the city of
Soldotna, Alaska, for airport purposes.
(b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree that, in
conveying any interest in the property which the United
States conveyed to the city by deed dated December 12, 1963,
the city will receive an amount for such interest which is
equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to
regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation).
(2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used
by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or
maintenance of a public airport.
SEC. 17. ROLLA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT.
(a) Authorization To Grant Releases.--Notwithstanding
section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on
December 30, 1957), the Secretary of Transportation is
authorized, subject to the provisions of section 4 of the Act
of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions
of subsection (b) of this section, to grant releases from any
of the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions
contained in the deed of conveyance dated December 30, 1957,
or any other deed of conveyance dated after such date and
before the date of enactment of this Act, under which the
United States conveyed certain property to the city of Rolla,
Missouri, for airport purposes.
(b) Conditions.--Any release granted under subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) The city of Rolla, Missouri, shall agree that, in
conveying any interest in the property which the United
States conveyed to the city by a deed described in subsection
(a), the city will receive an amount for such interest which
is equal to the fair market value (as determined pursuant to
regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation).
(2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used
by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or
maintenance of a public airport.
SEC. 18. PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Authority To Grant Release.--Notwithstanding section 4
of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and
subject to the provisions of subsection (b), the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
grant releases from all of the terms, conditions,
reservations, and restrictions contained in the deed of
conveyance dated September 15, 1949, under which the United
States conveyed certain property to Palm Springs, California,
for airport purposes. The releases shall apply only to
approximately 11 acres of lot 16 of section 13, and
approximately 39.07 acres of lots 19 and 20 of section 19,
used by the city of Palm Springs, California, for general
governmental purposes.
(b) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration under subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) The Administrator shall waive any requirement that
there be credited to the account of the airport any amount
attributable to the city's use for governmental purposes of
any land conveyed under the deed of conveyance referred to in
subsection (a) before the date of enactment of this section.
(2) The city shall abandon all claims, against income of
the Palm Springs Regional Airport or other assets of that
airport, for reimbursement of general revenue funds that the
city may have expended before the date of enactment of this
Act for acquisition of 523.39 acres of land conveyed August
28, 1961, for airport purposes and for expenses incurred at
any time in connection with such acquisition, and such claims
shall not be eligible for reimbursement under the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 or any successor Act.
SEC. 19. NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Soundproofing of Certain Residential Buildings.--
Section 104(c)(2) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately before ``to operators
of airports''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting in lieu
thereof ``; and (B) for projects to soundproof residential
buildings--
``(i) if the operator of the airport involved received
approval for a grant for a project to soundproof residential
buildings pursuant to section 301(d)(4)(B) of the Airport and
Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987;
``(ii) if the operator of the airport involved submits
updated noise exposure contours, as required by the
Secretary; and
``(iii) if the Secretary determines that the proposed
projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.
(b) Soundproofing and Acquisition of Certain Residential
Properties.--Section 104(c) of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (49 App. U.S.C. 2104(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Soundproofing and acquisition of certain residential
properties.--The Secretary is authorized under this section
to make grants to operators of airports and to units of local
government referred to in paragraph (1) for projects to
soundproof residential buildings located on residential
properties, and for projects to acquire residential
properties, at which noise levels are not compatible with
normal operations of an airport--
``(A) if the operator of the airport involved amended an
existing local aircraft noise regulation during calendar year
1993 to increase the maximum permitted noise levels for
scheduled air carrier aircraft as a direct result of
implementation of revised aircraft noise departure procedures
mandated for aircraft safety purposes by the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration for standardized
application at airports served by scheduled air carriers;
``(B) if the operator of the airport involved submits
updated noise exposure contours, as required by the
Secretary; and
``(C) if the Secretary determines that the proposed
projects are compatible with the purposes of this Act.''.
SEC. 20. RELOCATION OF AIRWAY FACILITIES.
Compensation received by the United States for transfer of
the San Jacinto Disposal Area by the United States to the
City of Galveston, Texas, shall include compensation to be
provided to the Federal Aviation Administration for all costs
of establishing airway facilities to replace existing airway
facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area. Such
compensation shall include but is not limited to the
replacement of the land, clear zones, buildings and
equipment, and demolition and disposal of the existing
facilities on the San Jacinto Disposal Area.
SEC. 21. AUGUSTA STATE AIRPORT WEATHER SERVICES.
(a) Requirement.--(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall
provide for weather observation services, including direct
radio contact between weather observers and pilots, at
Augusta State Airport in Maine.
(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall be responsible
for the operation and maintenance of equipment necessary to
carry out paragraph (1).
(b) Reimbursable Agreements.--The Secretary of
Transportation is authorized to enter into a reimbursable
agreement with the Maine Department of Transportation for the
provision of weather services pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 22. STUDY ON CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall conduct a study on the availability and
effectiveness of restraint systems that may offer protection
to a child carried in the lap of an adult aboard an air
carrier aircraft or provide for the attachment of a child
restraint device to the aircraft.
(b) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
of the House of Representatives a report on the results of
the study required in subsection (a). The report shall be
submitted within 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 23. EXCEPTIONS APPLICABLE TO STATE OF HAWAII.
(a) Definitions.--(1) Section 101(24) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1301(24)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For purposes
of title IV, the term `interstate air transportation' does
not include air transportation of passengers commencing and
terminating in the State of Hawaii.''.
(2) Section 101(26) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
App. U.S.C. 1301(26)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``With respect to transportation of passengers by
air within the State of Hawaii, the term `intrastate air
transportation' means the carriage of persons by a common
carrier for compensation or hire, by such aircraft,
commencing and terminating in the State of Hawaii; except
that the carriage of passengers moving as a part of a single
itinerary on a single ticket for transportation on an air
carrier or air carriers, beginning and/or ending outside the
State of Hawaii, is deemed to be in interstate
transportation.''.
(b) Federal Preemption.--(1) Section 105(a) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (49 App. U.S.C. 1305(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to
any transportation by air of persons commencing and
terminating within the State of Hawaii.''.
(2) Section 105(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(49 App. U.S.C. 1305(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``(other
than the State of Hawaii)''.
SEC. 24. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 503(a)(2)(B) of the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2202(a)(2)(B))
is amended by moving clauses (vii) and (viii) 2 ems to the
right.
(b) Airport Plans.--Section 504(a)(1) of the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2203(a)(1)) is
amended by redesignating clauses (1), (2), and (3) as clauses
(A), (B), and (C), respectively.
(c) Certain Project Costs.--Section 513(b)(4) of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C.
2212(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or (in the case of a commercial service
airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of the
total enplanements in the United States) between January 1,
1992, and October 31, 1992,'' immediately after ``July 12,
1976,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) That, with respect to a project at a commercial
service airport which annually has less than 0.05 percent of
the total enplanements in the United States, the Secretary
may approve the use of the funds described under paragraph
(2), notwithstanding the provisions of sections 505(d),
511(a)(16), and 515.''.
SEC. 25. EXPENDITURES FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.
Section 9502(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to expenditure from Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
is amended by striking ``(as such Acts were in effect on the
date of the enactment of the Airport and Airway Safety,
Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation
Act of 1992)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(as such Acts
were in effect on the date of the enactment of the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1993)''.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, this bill, the Airport Improvement Program
Temporary Extension Act of 1994, is a piece of authorizing legislation,
which would be S. 1491, and that will be postponed to a time within the
next 60 days, hopefully, that we will bring that legislation up. The
National Transportation Safety Board is available and we will be going
to that one shortly.
But, Madam President, I want to use this period of time for a little
background. I do not want to use the word ``history,'' but I want to
use it for a little background.
Madam President, at the request of Senator Feinstein last Thursday,
in order to avoid a floor fight on the airport fee issue I am
introducing a bill that the Senate will consider today to allow a
portion of airport grants to be awarded by the Federal Aviation
Administration for a 60-day period. A number of Senators have indicated
to me that they do not want to jeopardize an entire construction season
and would like to see the airport grant money start flowing to
airports, especially to small airports. I am in complete agreement and
this legislation will authorize the FAA to issue grants for 60 days.
Also, in this temporary bill the Secretary of Transportation will
have temporary authority for 60 days on airport fee increases. If the
Secretary receives a complaint from an airline he would issue an order
freezing the increase in the fee or make a determination that the fee
is reasonable. This provision will not affect existing airport
contracts--only those in dispute. A vast majority of airports have
existing contracts with the airlines and nothing that the Senate is
doing today will change that situation.
During the 60-day period there will be an effort to resolve the
airport fee issue. At the end of the 60-day period, or earlier if a
compromise is reached, the Senate will take up and consider S. 1491,
the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1993.
This is 1994, I understand, but we are now several months into the
fiscal year of 1993-94. The House has already passed their bill before
the budget period ran out.
I must add that my colleagues in the House of Representatives have
been very patient. Representative Oberstar passed his legislation
before the authorization lapsed at the end of the fiscal year. I have
attempted since last November to move an airport bill but the issues of
general aviation product liability became linked to the FAA
authorization.
On March 16, 1994 the Senate passed S. 1458, the general aviation
product liability legislation. For the past month I have been
struggling with the airport fee issue and have tried to craft a
compromise between the airports and the airlines. My State's most
famous legislator, Henry Clay, would be very disappointed in my
efforts.
Since the dawn of aviation, airport revenues have been used on the
airport. Prior to 1970, the Federal Government, through the FAA,
operated the National Airways System, but took only a small role in the
development of airport facilities. With the passage of the Federal
Airports Act of 1946--Public Law 79-377--the FAA did provide financial
assistance to those airports having financial difficulties. In 1970,
Congress decided that limited assistance was not adequate and enacted
the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970, Public Law 91-258. The
effort in 1970 was to expand and improve the airport and airway system.
Planning grants were established and the capital funding program was
targeted for the development and improvement of airports in conformity
with national objectives. The Federal funds were made available through
formula mechanisms, which are referred to as entitlement, and
discretionary mechanisms. In accepting a Federal grant, the airport
agrees to comply with certain grant conditions called assurances,
including those aimed at restricting the use of airport revenue for
aviation purposes.
Entitlement grants are awarded by the FAA to airports by a formula
based on the number of enplaning passengers. Discretionary grants are
awarded for capital projects for capacity enhancement, safety and
noise-abatement. A large portion of the discretionary grants are set
aside to achieve funding for various types of airports.
Madam President, I am trying to go back in history here to make the
point that we are beginning to get away from the intent that Congress
started out with, as part of our airports and airway system.
The Congress has authorized the Airport Improvement Program five
times since 1970. Each authorization has expanded the use of Federal
funds for other airport programs besides airfield or terminal
improvements. The most recent authorization allowed airports to use AIP
funds for parking lots and interactive computer equipment.
The Congress imposes specific conditions on airports that accept
Federal AIP funds, including a requirement that such airports certify
to the Secretary of Transportation that all funds generated by the
airport are dedicated to airport use. Now we are trying to get outside
of that dedication. In agreeing to a statutory arrangement for
supporting the National Transportation System, Congress intended for
airports to be self-supporting. Neither Congress nor the airports have
ever expected a profit from running an airport. Airports are monopoly
landlords.
In 1990, Congress authorized the use of passenger facility charges--
we refer to that at PFC's--to allow airports to prepare for the vast
number of capital projects needed throughout the country. The original
intent of the PFC was to apply the tax to airport projects which are
intended to preserve or enhance safety, security, capacity, and reduce
noise or enhance competition among air carriers. That is all it was
authorized for. Unfortunately, a number of airports have interpreted
this law to mean that PFC funds could be used for mass transit and
other modes of transportation. It has been an ongoing struggle since
the authorization of the PFC to keep the funds for airport development
and improvement.
Now local governments are looking to the airports to solve the
problems of diminishing resources. Communities want the airports to
shift their profile away from the improvement of the airports to
downtown. The Office of Inspector General at the Department of
Transportation, which is the only Federal office of which I am aware
that is reviewing the use of airport revenues has issued 15 reports
over the last few years documenting revenue diversion by airport
sponsors. In December, 1993 Representative Bob Carr, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation in the Committee on Appropriations in
the House of Representatives released a report which detailed numerous
revenue diversion activities at airports. The revenue diversion found
in the report included fund transfers, improper charges for indirect
services, charitable contributions, commingling of airport revenue with
other city funds and payments in lieu of taxes, which was never the
intent of the PFC. When the report was released Representative Carr
stated that the FAA was not in any meaningful way enforcing the
prohibitions against using airport generated revenues for non-airport
purposes. Representative Carr believes that the U.S. taxpayers have
extended a privileged revenue sharing to communities diverting revenue.
Last November, when the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported S. 1491, the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1993, the subject of revenue diversion was
addressed. The committee was aware that the city of Los Angeles had
announced its desire to divert revenue derived from the airport for use
``downtown.'' The committee restated that under applicable Federal law
airport fees must be reasonable and any revenue derived from the fees
must be utilized only for airport purposes and may not be diverted off
the airport. The issue of lockouts was also covered. The committee
stated that if Los Angeles intended to lock out air carriers such an
action would constitute a major interference with the free flow of
commerce and violate the prohibition contained in section 105 of the
Federal Aviation Act--49 U.S.C. section 1305--which states:
(N)o state or political subdivision thereof * * * shall
enact or enforce any law, rule regulation, standard, or other
provision having the force and effect of law relating to
rates, routes, or services of any air carrier have authority
under title IV of this Act to provide air transportation.
The Los Angeles International Airport's efforts to divert revenues
downtown has received a great deal of press attention. The airport,
owned and operated by the city of Los Angeles, has received over $180
million in Federal AIP grants since 1982. This plan to get money out of
the airport to pay for unrelated municipal services is the problem the
Senate faces today. Airport funding is a very complicated matter, and I
would like to take a little time to explain the issue for the benefit
of my colleagues.
Presently, most commercial airports are financially self-sufficient,
and receive no revenue from the local taxpayers. It is interesting to
note that as the financial condition of the airlines are reduced
airports have retained their healthy profit margins. Let us look at
that a minute. It is interesting to note that as the financial
condition of airlines are reduced, airports have retained their healthy
profit margins, and their revenues have increased faster than their
airport traffic.
According to Airline Business magazine in 1992 airport profits and
revenues rose by 14 percent. This summary was based on the financial
performance of 40 airport authorities throughout the world. U.S.
airports did not generate as much revenue as airports throughout the
rest of the world in that most terminals are operated by airlines and
not by local governments. For 1992, U.S. airports report profit margins
in the 30 to 50 percent range. Across the country, airports seem to be
on a building binge while the airlines industry is just beginning to
recover from record losses. Airline travel has declined, a number of
airlines have been in bankruptcy, airlines have been forced to seek
foreign investment, and everyone agrees there is too much capacity.
Airports in the United States are built and operated almost
exclusively at the expense of airport users. That is the consumer; that
is the passenger, that is the individual trying to get from one
community to another on the airlines. They are the ones who pay for the
operation. The operations at these airports are funded from airline
landing fees, terminal charges and rents from nonairline tenants such
as concession shops, car rental agencies, and parking lots. In addition
to airport development that is funded by bonds underwritten by specific
airlines, airports can also levy passenger facility charges [PFC's] on
airline passengers and apply for Federal funding from the Airport
Improvement Program.
Fees charged to the airlines and in turn passed on to the airline
passenger are calculated on two general ratemaking systems--residual
and compensatory.
Under a residual fee, the airport collects fees for parking, rental
cars, and other concessions and then turns to the airlines for the
balance necessary to run the airport. In other words, the airlines
guarantee the full cost of the airport. The risk to the airlines in
extending this guarantee is that concession revenues will be inadequate
and the airlines will be forced to subsidize the concessions. The
possible benefit to the airlines of a residual agreement is that if the
concessions are highly successful, the balance to be paid by the
airlines will be reduced.
From the standpoint of the airport, the benefit of a residual
agreement is that the airport's costs are guaranteed. This also makes
it easier to finance large capital projects. Frequently, these
agreements extend the full term of any bonds issued, since the
agreement itself provides financial support for the bonds. The drawback
to the residual agreement to the airport is that if the airport's
concessions are highly successful, some or all of these profits are
used to reduce airline rates instead of surpluses accumulating at the
airport.
The large majority of airport agreements are based on residual
methods. For example--the airline hubs at Cincinnati, in my State,
Detroit, Nashville, and Pittsburgh have residual agreements. Non-hub
airports in Cleveland, Orlando, and Tampa have residual agreements.
Under the compensatory system, the airlines pay only for the debt
service and maintenance and operating costs of the space they use. They
receive no credit for parking, rental car, or other income.
Without the airlines' guarantee of all airports costs which is at the
heart of the residual agreement, a compensatory agreements put the
airport at risk that it will not break even. However, some airport have
learned that their concessions readily turn a profit. These airports
benefit from compensatory methods because they can retain the full
amount of that profit without passing it on to the airlines or the
airline passenger. Examples of airports which use compensatory
ratemaking include Boston, Los Angeles, and Grand Rapids.
A much more common approach to airport ratemaking is to use a
modified compensatory approach to apply a compensatory system but to
share the profits generated so that a portion of the profit is used to
reduce airline fees and the remainder is retained by the airport to be
spent for airport purposes. Examples of airports which use the modified
compensatory approach are Allentown, Manchester, and Savannah.
While different ratemaking approaches make sense in different
situations, recent events in Grand Rapids and Los Angeles are setting
the trend for airports to adopt compensatory methods without attempting
to share the profits generated with the airlines or the traveling
consumer. This is one factor contributing to the rapid increase in
airport rates and charges.
For the past 2 months I have been attempting to get the airports and
the airlines to agree to compromise on the airport fee issue. The Air
Transport Association, which represents most the airlines, the Airports
Council International, and the American Association of Airport
Executives have met on three occasions to try to come to some agreement
on revenue diversion, lockouts, surpluses, and a standard and process
for decisions at the Department of Transportation to determine
reasonable fees. I wish I could report to my colleagues that progress
has been made. Unfortunately, the parties now seem further apart and
there are many bogus issues which keep appearing.
For the benefit of my colleagues I would like to explain my views on
the airport fee issue. Every airport in the country is attached some
way to a unit of local government--a city, county, State, or regional
compact. Even through airports are a part of local government and
receive Federal entitlement and discretionary funds there are a number
of airports where no one can ascertain the revenues. In the 1992
authorization I included a provision which requires airports to make
public their budgets. Unfortunately, neither the annual report or the
budget of some airports give a breakdown of information on airport
revenues. Airlines are often negotiating airport fee agreements without
any knowledge of the concession revenues.
Airports are public bodies with public responsibilities and should be
responsible to the public to open their books. Let me read that again.
Airports are public bodies with public responsibilities and should be
responsible to the public to open their books. I am not just talking
about the airlines having access to the various fees. As local
government units, airport revenues should be part of the public record.
Besides the public accountability issue a fundamental problem is that
the airport trade associations do not believe that the Congress should
act on the airport fee issue. The airlines are of the opposite opinion.
I understand the Department of Transportation is currently considering
definitions, policy, and a process for settling airport fee disputes.
Since this exercise is based on current law I see no reason why the
Congress should not be able to address these issues. The meetings
during the past 2 months have been an effort to come to agreement on
definitions when allow the DOT to develop a process by when complaints
are filed and acted upon.
DOT presently administers airport fee complaints by a regulation
referred to as a part 13 complaints process. Seven cases have been
filed and the average length of time that the fee level case has been
pending is 33 months. One airport advised me of a part 13 complaint in
which they were involved which had been under consideration for 48
months.
Madam President, it is obvious there is not a process that can settle
disputes over airport fees. Most airport fee agreements are not
disputed nor would anything that is being considered to address this
issue attempt to change any current agreement. If the airlines have
signed a contract, the fee they are paying is not an issue. Nor is
inflationary indexing which is a provision in a number of airport
contracts. The only issue that we are considering is when the airport
fee is in dispute. Less than 10 lawsuits have been filed in over 25
years on airport fees. Contrary to what you have probably heard on this
issue it involves a very small number of airports. Unfortunately, it
seems to be a trend.
No one seems to be representing the airline passenger. It is the
airline passenger who pays the landing fee, the PFC and a portion of
the passenger's ticket goes into the Aviation Trust fund. I believe
there is a compromise on the airport fee issue and I strongly believe
that it is in the interest of the airline passenger to resolve this
impasse.
In the 60 days that this bill allows before S. 1491 is considered I
will bring back to the table the airports, the airlines, Senator
Feinstein and other interested Members to develop an amendment to be
added to S. 1491. I will continue to address the many aviation issues
raised by my colleagues and it is hoped that before the end of the
sixty day delay the Senate will be considering S. 1491.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Ford,
Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, for his leadership on this bill
to temporarily extend the Airport Improvement Program. I think it is
very important we work out an agreement to get this bill passed before
our airports lose an entire construction season. I commend both Senator
Ford and Senator Danforth for their leadership on this issue.
As ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, I, too, am very
concerned about moving this legislation expeditiously. I would like to
see an agreement worked out to move this bill forward as quickly as
possible. While I originally intended to offer an amendment to this
bill, I understand the subcommittee chairman's desire to move this
legislation without amendments. Therefore, I will work with Senator
Ford to include my amendment on another piece of legislation.
Again, Madam President, I thank both Senator Ford and Senator
Danforth for their leadership.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator withhold that?
Mr. PRESSLER. I withdraw that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to commend the
subcommittee chairman, Senator Ford, for working to forge this
temporary compromise. I believe it achieves two important goals. First,
it turns on the tap for the Federal Airport Improvement Program funds
to begin flowing and, secondly, it allows the airports and the airlines
an additional 60 days to come to the table and establish a methodology
for a fair system of setting rates and charges that would be agreeable
to both sides.
Madam President, I must say, I speak with some experience in knowing
that this can be done because while mayor of San Francisco, I forged
such an agreement involving San Francisco International Airport and the
air carriers. And today that agreement, in effect, is a win-win for the
airlines and the airport operators. So I know firsthand that it can be
done.
We are approaching a very critical construction season, and it is
more important than ever that we make these moneys available promptly.
Grants from this program are vital, particularly for small airports.
They are used to do such things as improve runways, install
navigational equipment, conduct master plans, soundproof residents that
are near airports, acquire firefighting vehicles, among others.
In 1992, the last year for which a report is available, this program
provided $100 million to the State of Florida, $100 million to my State
of California, $84 million to Colorado, $47 million to Michigan, $12
million to New Hampshire, and on and on. This bill affects airports,
large and small, in every State. And the way the chairman has worked
this interim measure out, it would not delay funding any longer.
Let me for a moment speak to the issue which is at hand. The issue
basically revolves around two different methodologies of setting rates
and charges. One is called a residual methodology, which airports and
airlines have historically used to set the rates and charges, and a
newer methodology called compensatory ratemaking.
The airlines challenged compensatory ratemaking in a case before the
U.S. Supreme Court called Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al versus County
of Kent, MI, et al. The air carriers effectively lost the Supreme Court
case, when the Court upheld the right of an airport operator to
establish rates according to a compensatory methodology.
Put plainly, under a compensatory methodology, airports can base
their landing fees on the airport's cost to operate those facilities
that the airlines actually use--runways and navigational facilities--
and utilize other revenues such as concession revenues for airport
improvements. The airlines do not like this.
Those landing-fee agreements that are at issue today really revolve
around some of these issues, and it is fair to say that significant
differences of opinion remain between the principal parties.
Compounding the situation, there is currently no clear guidance from
the Department of Transportation to aid the resolution of disputes
between airlines and airports about what is and what is not a
reasonable fee. For the last couple of months, the Department of
Transportation has been in the process of developing these guidelines,
and I strongly urge Secretary Pena, the Department, and the FAA to do
everything within their power to expedite the issuance of these
guidelines so that they may be subject to public comment and we may put
in place rules to resolve future disputes.
It is important to recognize that the legislation before us is simply
an interim measure. It provides time, 60 days, to allow airports and
airlines to reach an agreement that is fair. The measure is not
perfect. In a sense, it is a cooling-off period. I recognize that there
are significant concerns, concerns that I share, about Congress
directing the Secretary of Transportation to freeze disputed rate
increases should they arise in the next 60 days. I do not support
congressional authority over setting rates and charges in the long term
and do not see this as a preview of things to come.
But I strongly support the need to develop a workable relationship
between airport operators and air carriers. I know firsthand that this
can be achieved, and when it is, it will be a win-win for the airport
operators as well as for the air carriers. I hope that continued
discussions between the principals over the next 60 days will achieve
this goal.
I offer my assistance, as I have previously, to the subcommittee
chairman to work with him and all the principals in this discussion to
develop a real compromise that is a win-win for airports, for airlines
and, most importantly, for the traveling public.
Again, I thank the subcommittee chairman for working to put together
a bill which allows airports to begin receiving funds that are critical
to them and allows an opportunity to develop fair policy regarding
rates and charges upon which all parties can agree.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. DANFORTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I wish to join with other Senators in
expressing my admiration for the work that Senator Ford has done in
bringing this legislation to the floor.
This bill is a short-term fix for a very real problem, and the
problem is the imminent needs of airports to proceed with construction,
to have available to them construction funds that would be made
available by the airport improvement program, and to get to work during
the current construction season. If we waited for a longer-term
authorization bill, we could be waiting through the year, and this was
recognized by the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Ford, and
therefore we are bringing to the floor today a bill which lasts just 60
days, a 60-day authorization.
It is my understanding that a permanent authorization bill will be
brought to the floor of the Senate before the expiration of 60 days.
This really is the concern of a lot of us I think, that the short-term
authorization will be the end of it. It cannot be the end of it. We
need a long-term authorization lasting at least 3 years so that
airports can have a sense of what the future holds and so that they can
make their plans and get on with the long-term work that they will have
to be doing.
I listened very carefully to the comments of the Senator from
Kentucky. I have spoken to him in person on this. I know it is his
intention that within the 60-day period of time a bill must be brought
to the floor of the Senate which is a long-term authorization.
It is on that understanding, the understanding that it is essential
and that this is something that will happen, I am willing and in fact
delighted to be going forward with this short-term authorization.
I would like to say just a word about the needs of the airports. I
say this from the standpoint of a Senator who has located in his State
an airline which has had considerable perils in the past. TWA is an
airline which is locating its headquarters in St. Louis. It is an
airline which has approximately half of its employees worldwide who
reside in the State of Missouri, and it controls about 80 percent of
the traffic at Lambert in St. Louis, so it is a major, major economic
factor in our State as well as the employer of thousands of people--
12,000 to 13,000 people I believe. So its health is exceptionally
important to my State, and it is something that has consumed a great
deal of my attention for a long number of years.
On the other hand, having said that, I am intensely interested in the
problems of the airlines--very concerned, for example, about the fare
war that is now going on among the airlines and what that will do to
the health of the airlines. As a believer that Congress should address
the various problems which exist with respect to the health of the
airlines, I am also cognizant of the needs of the airports.
Anybody who travels through my State and who has gotten off a plane
at Lambert in St. Louis, anybody who has changed planes at Lambert,
recognizes the degree of the problem. This is one airport--and there
are others in this country--that has obvious capital needs and these
are going to be very expensive capital needs.
On the ability of the airports to meet those capital needs hangs not
only the future of the airport in question but also hangs the economic
future and the long-term future of the community as a whole.
So there is no doubt in my mind that the airports are going to have
to come up with capital. In order to do that, the airports are going to
have to have sources that are consistent, that are reliable, and that
are predictable for the financing of the issuance of bonds in order to
finance airport construction. In order to have that kind of revenue
source to finance the bonds, the airports are going to have to charge
fees.
Therefore, Madam President, it is very important that, whatever we do
in order to address the problems of the airlines, it not create the
kind of situation where there is such unpredictability in the minds of
the purchaser of bonds and in the minds of the airports and those who
operate the airports that they cannot go forward with the construction
needs.
This bill provides a mechanism for addressing the fee question that
exists between the airports and the airlines. It is important to note
that it is a short-term mechanism. It is not a mechanism that provides
a precedent for anything. It is a short-term mechanism which lasts for
the 60-day period of this bill and does not extend beyond the 60-day
period of this bill.
The issue of fees and the issue of charges by airports to the
concessionaires at the airports are matters that are going to be before
the country in the future, and they are not all going to be resolved in
a 60-day authorization bill.
I note that the Secretary of Transportation is planning to complete a
rulemaking to resolve disputes between airlines and airports on airport
ratemaking issues. That is good news. And I encourage the Secretary of
Transportation to go forward with this program, and hopefully to do so
before this legislation reaches the floor of the Senate again, because
the Secretary of Transportation and the Department of Transportation
have the expertise to weigh the various competing airlines with respect
to this question.
Again, Madam President, I would like to reiterate the essential
requirement that the long-term legislation come to the floor of the
Senate within the next 60 days. Indeed, I think that the knowledge that
it will is, in the mind of this Senator and, I am sure, in the minds of
other Senators as well, really the necessary component in our thinking
in going forward with the 60-day extension.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, let me just say to my good friend from
Missouri, Senator Danforth, that I intend to bring up the major piece
of legislation, S. 1491, in 60 days or less. I underscore ``less.''
That is my intention. I understand where he is coming from, I hope, and
I believe he understands where I am coming from.
The main thing that he has said here is that we are freezing the fees
unless there is an agreement. That is No. 1. No. 2, we are releasing
moneys so that we may take advantage of this construction season and
there are many airports out there, small and large, that need the
funding. We should not restrict them because of a disagreement here as
it relates to the local communities making their effort and then being
stymied because we have gone now 6 months without reauthorization.
So I agree with him. I want to make that public so he will understand
my intention as it relates to S. 1491.
Madam President, we have one question left going forward with this
legislation. At some point, I will ask unanimous consent that all the
statements made by myself, Senator Feinstein, Senator Danforth, and
Senator Pressler be included in the Record along with the passage,
hopefully, of the small 60-day or short 60-day piece of legislation.
passenger facility charges at the chattanooga metropolitan airport
Mr. MATHEWS. Madam President, I would like to take a moment during
discussion of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act to discuss with
the Senator from Kentucky a problem facing the Chattanooga Metropolitan
Airport Authority.
Mr. FORD. I would be happy to discuss this matter with my friend, the
Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. MATHEWS. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority has
submitted an application to the Federal Aviation Administration for
authority to impose a passenger facility charge [PFC] of $3 on each
passenger enplaned at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. The FAA is
to make a decision on approval of this application by the end of this
month.
Approval of this request is very important to the airport authority.
It plans to use a portion of the PFC revenues to fund current and
future property acquisitions and construction at the airport. In
addition, the PFC's would be used to recover that portion of the cost
of reconstructing and expanding the passenger terminal that was
incurred after November 5, 1990. The airport authority has been advised
by the FAA that costs incurred after November 5, 1990 may not be
recovered unless the contract under which the work was done was entered
after November 5, 1990. This is the issue that I wish to discuss with
my friend from Kentucky. I believe that the FAA is misinterpreting its
mandate from Congress. Congress cannot have intended for airports
watching the progress of the PFC law and counting on the imminent
availability of PFC revenues to somehow cancel existing construction
contracts on November 5, 1990 and then negotiate replacement contracts
in order to make costs incurred after November 5, 1990 allowable for
PFC funding. Would the Senator from Kentucky care to comment on this
point?
Mr. FORD. Neither the PFC enabling legislation nor the implementing
Federal Air Regulations--FAR 158--contain any requirements concerning
the contract or the notice to proceed. They mention only costs incurred
after November 5, 1990. This would also be consistent with the way the
FAA has understood and uniformly treated AIP allowability in thousands
of cases since 1982. When the work is actually done--when the cost is
actually incurred--is the determining factor. As an example, if an
airport let a contract to pour 1,000 yards of concrete and 10 years
were poured before the AIP grant was confirmed, then the cost of the
first 10 yards of concrete would be disallowed, but the cost of the
remaining 990 yards would be allowed. Congress enacted the PFC program
to supplement AIP and to provide additional funding for airport
operators in order to achieve, as quickly as reasonably possible,
significant expansion and improvement of the National Airspace System.
Congress expected the FAA to follow AIP principles and practices in
administering the PFC program so that the PFC program would supplement
and complement AIP.
Mr. MATHEWS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for clarifying that
issue. That is also my understanding of the PFC enabling legislation.
If the FAA position prevails, the Chattanooga Airport Authority will be
unable to use PFC revenues to recover approximately $2.5 million of the
costs of construction on the passenger terminal occurring after
November 5, 1990. This would have serious economic implications for the
airport authority.
Again, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his assistance and his
clarification of the intentions of Congress regarding airport
authorities' use of passenger facility charges.
essential air service--international transit enplanements colloquy
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, along with Senator Cohen, I would like
to ask the chairman of the aviation subcommittee if he could help
clarify the intent of an aviation program of particular importance to
Maine.
Mr. FORD. I will be glad to offer my assistance.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the chairman. As the chairman knows, the
essential air service program is an important safety net which ensures
that many small communities will not lose the scheduled air service
that is so important to their economic development. In so doing, EAS
ensures that our Nation's aviation system is truly national by
connecting even the remotest points to our larger economy.
Mr. FORD. That is true. EAS indeed provides an important service to
many small communities across the Nation.
Mr. MITCHELL. Of course, there are limits to the EAS program. Present
law disqualifies any point that is within 70 miles of a large or medium
hub airport from receiving subsidized air service through EAS. Section
419 of the Federal Aviation Act defines such a hub airport as an
airport that annually has 0.25 percent or more of the total annual
enplanements in the United States. Because EAS is meant to provide
communities with an essential link to the national aviation system, I
take it that the enplanements criterion for defining hub airports is
meant to identify airports within a reasonable driving distance of a
proposed EAS point which offer a sufficient volume of domestic air
service as to undermine the need for EAS subsidies.
Mr. FORD. Yes; I believe the majority leader is correct.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the chairman.
Mr. COHEN. I also thank the chairman. However, I understand that the
term ``enplanement'' as used in section 419 is not specifically
defined. Instead, the Department of Transportation uses data compiled
by the FAA and published in ``Airport Activity Statistics of Certified
Route Air Carriers'' for this purpose.
I understand that because the purpose of EAS is to provide small
communities with an essential link to the domestic aviation system, the
FAA data used to define hub airports for EAS purposes traditionally has
included only the traffic of certificated U.S.-flag carriers, and has
excluded commuter carrier and foreign air carrier operations, as well
as international transit passengers.
Mr. FORD. Yes; I believe that is correct.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the chairman.
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe it makes good sense to exclude these other
types of enplanements for EAS purposes because they do not provide data
relevant to the underlying purpose of the EAS; namely, to connect small
communities to the national aviation system.
Mr. COHEN. I agree with my colleague. As an example, Bangor
International Airport in Maine provides transit services to many
foreign air carriers that need to refuel in the United States before
completing flights to other points in the United States and foreign
countries. These flights which carry international transit passengers
through Bangor are almost never available for sale to local passengers;
they have no bearing on whether Bangor should be considered a hub
airport that would disqualified other communities in the region from
receiving the EAS subsidies that are critical to their economic
development and their continued role in the national aviation system.
Mr. FORD. I understand my colleagues' concern. Any change in the
enplanement criterion for EAS purposes to include foreign and commuter
carrier operations and international transit flights would be
inappropriate. This is especially true since transit flights operated
by foreign air carriers are disqualified under cabotage rules from
carrying local traffic between U.S. points. These international transit
flights are prohibited from providing a domestic service to U.S.
customers that would affect the need for EAS subsidies to help connect
small communities to the domestic aviation system.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the chairman for his insight on this matter.
Mr. COHEN. I also thank the chairman.
Mr. MITCHELL. We hope very much that the Secretary will continue to
use enplanement data that is relevant to the domestic aviation system
when determining hub airports for EAS purposes. Such data includes
passengers who actually board a flight operated by a U.S. certificated
air carrier at an airport in question. On the other hand, passengers on
international flights which transit an airport for nontraffic purposes,
passengers boarding commuter carrier flights, and passengers boarding
foreign air carrier flights are not relevant indicators of an airport's
ability to connect a community to the larger domestic system.
Consistent with this approach, I hope the Secretary will continue to
use the traditional data reported in ``Airport Activity Statistics of
Certificated Route Air Carriers'' for EAS purposes.
Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I would like to engage the Senator
from Kentucky in a colloquy concerning the pending legislation. My
strong preference would be for a full multiyear reauthorization of the
Airport Improvement Program. I understand that there are a few issues
still being worked out, and that it may take a little longer to bring a
multiyear bill to the floor. In the meantime, however, this measure
will free up some of the funding needed by airports this year. I do
understand, however, that it is not intended to be anything more than a
temporary measure. Is that the understanding of the Senator from
Kentucky?
Mr. FORD. I agree with Senator Danforth that this is only intended to
be a temporary measure. I hope he will work with me to ensure that we
pass a multiyear bill in the next 2 months.
Mr. DANFORTH. This legislation gives the Transportation Secretary
emergency authority to find an airport rate increase on airlines to be
unreasonable. The Secretary, in reviewing whether a fee is reasonable,
as I understand it, would have the ability to review not only the fees
being proposed, but other instruments, such as bond indentures, letters
of credit, or their financing obligations.
Mr. FORD. There is nothing in this legislation that would preclude
the Secretary from taking into account those types of documents or
situations.
Mr. DANFORTH. My concern is that in imposing a freeze, the Secretary
be extremely cognizant of the consequences to the bond market. I would
not want to see an airport's bond ratings impaired as a result of a
freeze.
Mr. FORD. Nor would I. I suspect that in those cases where a bond,
for example, might require that the airport maintain certain coverage,
the Secretary would be able to review the fee proposed and any other
relevant information to determine if the fee is reasonable. In
addition, nothing in this bill prohibits an airline and airport from
reaching an agreement on a fee.
Mr. DANFORTH. I have another concern which I consider significant.
Ordinarily, the law gives actions of State or local governments a
presumption of validity. This legislation does not. In fact, it says
that the Secretary must issue an order preventing an airport rate from
going into effect unless the Secretary finds that the rate is
reasonable. While this result may be unobjectionable if embodied in a
short-term bill, I cannot support the inclusion of this concept in
permanent legislation.
Mr. FORD. I understand your concerns about a long-term solution. Let
me assure my colleague that this emergency legislation expires on June
30 and is not intended as a model for a long-term solution--it is only
and solely a short-term mechanism.
Mr. DANFORTH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I know of no other Senators who wishes to
speak. Again I thank all my colleagues for their help and support in
securing the passage of this legislation.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I would like to speak on behalf of a
particularly important issue to my State of Montana.
Rural aviation is at a crossroads in our country. Reliable,
affordable airline transportation, and modern aviation facilities are
absolutely critical to the survival of our towns, our schools, and our
businesses. Bruce Putnam, director of aviation and transit for the city
of Billings, MT, put it best in a letter to me requesting funds for
airport improvements: ``Conrad'' he wrote, ``these aren't frills. We
simply must find the resources to meet our important needs.''
The primary source of Federal funds for airport improvements comes
from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program [AIP] and I am pleased to
offer my support of the short-term reauthorization of this program to
pen the taps on the AIP Program get this money out to the airports as
soon as possible.
Following the September 30, 1993, lapse in the AIP Program, airports
across the Nation have been cutoff from these Federal funds. For the
last 7 months, the Federal Aviation Administration has been held back
from issuing grants, which have already been appropriated for new AIP
projects, because Congress failed to enact reauthorizing legislation
before adjourning for the year.
While this is a troublesome situation for all U.S. airports, States
in the Northwest region are hardest hit by this delay. In my State of
Montana, for example, rural airports are struggling to keep the few
contractors available to complete these projects, and they are faced
with losing the entire construction period to winter weather if these
funds are not reauthorized soon enough.
If these funds are not available the important and necessary
infrastructure improvements for airports across the Nation will be
delayed for at least another year. At the Missoula International
Airport in Missoula, MT, for example, the airport authority will not
have the resources to acquire the new handicap passenger lift device,
to service regional air carrier aircraft, to bring the airport into
compliance with American's With Disabilities Act. At the Bert Mooney
Airport in Butte, MT, the airport authority will not be able to replace
the outdated and unreliable 1974 fire equipment with the new aircraft
rescue and firefighting [ARFF] equipment, and for another season, these
Montana firefighter's safety will be put at risk.
As we continue our consideration of this legislation, I would like to
offer my support to my colleagues on the Aviation Subcommittee for
their work on a multiyear reauthorization of the Airport Improvement
Program. A multiyear reauthorization will allow the airports to plan
long-term safety improvements and reconstruction projects in advance,
and these important projects will not be held back by a lack of
congressional action again.
AIPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I am here to commend the leadership of my
esteemed colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Aviation. As you know, Madam President, the Airport
Improvement Program [AIP] is a valuable source of much-needed funds for
airport construction and maintenance. Similarly, airport-air carrier
fees are an important source of funding for airports. Given the demand
for airport improvements and the need to ensure high quality and safety
standards, it is imperative that AIP funds be distributed and that any
disputes about fees be resolved. However, it would be a disservice to
Northern States like Wisconsin to delay the AIP funds simply to resolve
the fee dispute; we would be cutting off all sources of airport revenue
for an indefinite period of time, and Wisconsin just doesn't have this
time to spare.
Due to short summers, Wisconsin has a limited construction season.
The longer AIP funds are delayed, the more narrow that window of
opportunity becomes.
Madam President, I twice contacted my good friend from Kentucky to
express these concerns and to ask that these funds be released while we
resolve the fees dispute. I know that my friend from Kentucky is
sympathetic to Wisconsin's position and the need for AIP funds, and
that he has worked diligently to get us to this point. This has been a
difficult task, and the dispute has yet to be resolved. Recognizing the
gravity of the situation, however, Senator Ford has done the right
thing by separating this dispute from at least a portion of AIP funds.
Many airports will now be able to get the funds that they desperately
need, and, separately, there will be an opportunity to resolve the
dispute over airport-air carrier fees. For this work, Wisconsin and the
Nation must thank him.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while the Senate considers a
temporary extension of the Airport Improvement Act, which I will
support, I would like to take this opportunity to bring the Senate up
to date on a report due to Congress on the safety of the flight service
station modernization in Alaska.
On October 5, 1993, I offered an amendment to the DOT appropriations
bill that was accepted and required the Secretary of Transportation to
do a report on the safety of closing and consolidating the flight
service stations in Alaska. This report was due no later than 90 days
after enactment of the legislation, October 27, 1993. The amendment
halted the progress of the modernization program until 90 days after
the report was received by Congress.
The report was due on January 25, 1994. Today, 84 days later, it is
still missing.
On March 9, 1994, I wrote to Secretary of Transportation Pena asking
when he will receive the report. Now I have something else to wait for:
An answer to my letter.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am hopeful we have taken a major step
toward resolving several major issues that have been pending during the
AIP debate. I am particularly encouraged that two important items will
be resolved in the final extension of the program later this summer.
First, with regard to the dispute over diversion of airport fees, I
know Senator Ford and Senator Danforth have expended an enormous effort
to find resolution of this issue. In fact, I have heard from a great
many airlines and airports--particularly the Wichita and Salina
Airports in my State of Kansas, and Kansas City International Airport
which serves the Greater Kansas City Area--regarding their concerns
this problem be worked out appropriately.
I have also spoken to Mayor Dick Riordan of Los Angeles on at least
two occasions. I know he has been seeking to find a constructive
solution to this dispute and has contributed a lot of time and effort
to this process.
Let me say as we move into this 60-day period where extended
negotiations between the airports and the airlines will be taking
place, I encourage all the parties to bargain in good faith and move
expeditiously toward resolution of this problem because I agree with
Senators Ford and Danforth that we need to release the rest of these
AIP funds to the States as soon as possible.
On another subject -have been following closely, I understand that it
is the manager's intention when we take up the multiyear AIP extension
bill this June to include language modifying the Federal Aviation Act
with regard to defining the types of carriers that would be considered
intermodal all-cargo air carriers for purposes of the act. I have had a
serious concern that during early deliberations over these provisions
that one significant Kansas carrier, Yellow Corp., the parent company
of Yellow Freight System of Overland Park, may find itself in a
competitive disadvantage if this language does not include additional
provisions for their utilization of air carrier service. Mr. President,
Yellow Corp. employs 3,000 people in my State of Kansas with a payroll
of $79 million.
My understanding is that the managers agree, and I have been assured,
that Yellow's operations will be included and their concerns will be
accommodated in any final agreement reached on this air freight carrier
provision. It is my view that an important goal under this legislation
is to create a level playing field for intrastate trucking operations
of intermodal all-cargo air carriers. This legislation, when adopted,
will open up greater competition in these markets and greater
innovation in the service provided to consumers by these carriers all
helping to create jobs in Kansas and the Nation and a truly integrated
system of cargo delivery.
Mr. President, I note with sadness that today is the 1-year
anniversary of the tragic death of South Dakota Governor George
Mickelson and seven other South Dakotan's. My friend and colleague
Senator Pressler will at some point, perhaps later today, offer an
amendment that would advance the safety of public aircraft--that is,
those aircraft that are used exclusively to serve Federal, State, and
local governments. Under current law, these types of aircraft are not
subject to Federal Aviation Act safety requirements. I commend Senator
Pressler in his efforts in this regard. It is unfortunate that a
tragedy oftentimes highlights problems we must address. We will miss
this most popular and capable South Dakota Governor and his
accomplishments for his State. I urge my colleagues to consider and
support this important legislation proposed by Senator Pressler.
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have two unanimous consent agreements
that have been cleared on both sides.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read
three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1491), as amended, was deemed read the third time and
passed.
____________________