[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.

                          ____________________