[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 1994
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2024) 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, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2024
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program
Temporary Extension Act of 1994''.
TITLE I--AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Authorization.--The second sentence of section 505(a)
of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C.
App. 2204(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' following ``1992,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $15,763,890,000 for fiscal years
ending before October 1, 1994'' before the period at the end.
(b) Obligational Authority.--Section 505(b)(1) of such Act
(49 U.S.C. App. 2204(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``September 30, 1993'' and inserting ``June 30, 1994''.
SEC. 102. APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS.
Section 507(b)(3)(A) of the Airport and Airway Improvement
Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2206(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or reducing the amount authorized or''
and inserting ``the amount'';
(2) by inserting ``to less than $1,900,000,000'' after ``to
be obligated''; and
(3) by striking ``limited or reduced''.
SEC. 103. MINIMUM AMOUNT FOR PRIMARY AIRPORTS.
Section 507(b)(1) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2206(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``$400,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
SEC. 104. INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING SET-ASIDE.
Section 508(d)(4) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2207(d)(4)) is amended by striking
``\1/2\'' and inserting ``\3/4\''.
SEC. 105. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAST EXPENDITURES.
Section 513(a)(2) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2212(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (B); and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C)(i) it was incurred--
``(I) during fiscal year 1994;
``(II) before execution of a grant agreement with respect
to the project but in accordance with an airport layout plan
approved by the Secretary and in accordance with all
applicable statutory and administrative requirements that
would have been applicable to the project if the grant
agreement had been executed; and
``(III) for work related to a project for which a grant
agreement was executed during fiscal year 1994; and
``(ii) its Federal share is only paid with sums apportioned
under subsections 507(a)(1) and 507(a)(2) of this title;''.
SEC. 106. EXPENDITURES FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.
Section 9502(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to expenditures 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 ``or the Airport Improvement
Program Temporary Extension Act of 1994 (as such Acts were in
effect on the date of the enactment of the Airport
Improvement Program Temporary Extension Act of 1994)''.
SEC. 107. UPWARD ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) In General.--The second sentence of section 505(b)(1)
of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C.
App. 2204(b)(1)) is further amended by--
(1) inserting ``(A)'' before ``apportioned''; and
(2) inserting before the period at the end ``; and (B)
funds which have been recovered by the United States from
grants made under this title if such funds are obligated only
for increases under sections 512(b)(2) and 512(b)(3) of this
title in the maximum obligation of the United States for any
other grant made under this title''.
(b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 1993.
TITLE II--AIRPORT-AIR CARRIER DISPUTES REGARDING AIRPORT FEES
SEC. 201. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO FREEZE CERTAIN AIRPORT FEES.
(a) Complaint by Air Carrier.--
(1) Filing.--An air carrier may file prior to June 30,
1994, with the Secretary a written complaint alleging that
any increased fee imposed upon such air carrier by the owner
or operator of an airport is not reasonable. The air carrier
shall simultaneously file with the Secretary proof that a
copy of the complaint has been served on the owner or
operator of the airport.
(2) Opportunity to respond.--Before issuing an order under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide the owner or
operator of the airport an opportunity to respond to the
filed complaint.
(3) Frivolous complaint.--If the Secretary determines that
a complaint is frivolous, the Secretary may refuse to accept
the complaint for filing.
(b) Order by the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall issue, within 7 days after the filing of a
complaint in accordance with subsection (a), an order
prohibiting the owner or operator of the airport from
collecting the increased portion of the fee that is the
subject of the complaint, unless the Secretary makes a
preliminary determination that the increased fee is
reasonable. Subject to subsection (d), the order shall cease
to be effective on June 30, 1994.
(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not issue an order
under this subsection prohibiting the collection of any
portion of a fee for which the Secretary's informal mediation
assistance was requested on March 21, 1994.
(c) Opportunity To Comment and Furnish Related Material.--
Within a period prescribed by the Secretary, the owner or
operator of the airport and any affected air carrier may
submit comments to the Secretary on a complaint filed under
subsection (a) and furnish to the Secretary any related
documents or other material.
(d) Action on Complaint.--Based on comments and material
provided under subsection (c), the Secretary may take
appropriate action on the complaint, including termination or
other modification of any order issued under subsection (b).
(e) Applicability.--This section does not apply to a fee
imposed pursuant to a written agreement binding on air
carriers using the facilities of an airport.
(f) Effect on Existing Agreements.--Nothing in this section
shall adversely affect any existing written agreement between
an air carrier and the owner or operator of an airport.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) the term ``fee'' means any rate, rental charge, landing
fee, or other service charge for the use of airport
facilities; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Transportation.
TITLE III--REFORM OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
SEC. 301. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall undertake
a study of management, regulatory, and legislative reforms
which would enable the air traffic control system of the
Federal Aviation Administration to provide better services to
users and reduce the costs of providing services, without
reducing the safety of the system or the availability of the
system to all categories of users and without changing the
basic organizational structure under which the system is part
of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Components.--The study to be conducted under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Evaluation of reforms which would streamline
procurement, enhance the ability to attract and retain
adequate staff at hard-to-staff facilities, simplify the
personnel process, provide funding stability, ensure
continuity of leadership, and reduce the incidence of
unnecessarily detailed management oversight.
(2) Identification of any existing laws or regulations
governing procurement or personnel which are having an
adverse effect on the operation or modernization of the air
traffic control system.
(3) Evaluation of a range of possible reforms and the
advantages and disadvantages of each possible reform.
(4) Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each
possible reform with the comparable advantages and
disadvantages to be achieved under any proposal of the
Secretary of Transportation to create a separate Federal
corporate entity to operate the air traffic control system.
(c) Deadline.--The results of the study to be conducted
under subsection (a) shall be contained in a report which
shall be completed by the Secretary of Transportation on or
before the date which is 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, or the date on which the Secretary
submits to Congress proposed legislation to create a separate
corporate entity to operate the air traffic control system,
whichever date occurs first.
(d) Transmittal.--On the date of completion of the report
under subsection (c), the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit copies of the report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. GRANDFATHER PROVISION FOR FAA DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the termination of the
personnel demonstration project for certain Federal Aviation
Administration employees on June 17, 1994, pursuant to
section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, the Federal
Aviation Administration shall continue to pay quarterly
retention allowance payments in accordance with subsection
(b) to those employees who are entitled to quarterly
retention allowance payments under the demonstration project
as of June 16, 1994.
(b) Computation Rules.--
(1) In general.--The amount of each quarterly retention
allowance payment to which an employee is entitled under
subsection (a) shall be the amount of the last quarterly
retention allowance payment paid to such employee under the
personnel demonstration project prior to June 17, 1994,
reduced by that portion of the amount of any increase in the
employee's annual rate of basic pay subsequent to June 17,
1994, from any source, which is allocable to the quarter for
which the allowance is to be paid (or, if applicable, to that
portion of the quarter for which the allowance is to be
paid). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the increase
in an employee's annual rate of basic pay includes--
(A) any increase under section 5303 of title 5, United
States Code;
(B) any increase in locality-based comparability payments
under section 5304 of such title 5 (except if, or to the
extent that, such increase is offset by a reduction of an
interim geographic adjustment under section 302 of the
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990);)
(C) any establishment or increase in a special rate of pay
under section 5305 of such title 5;
(D) any increase in basic pay pursuant to a promotion under
section 5334 of such title 5;
(E) any periodic step-increase under section 5335 of such
title 5;
(F) any additional step-increase under section 5336 of such
title 5; and
(G) any other increase in annual rate of basic pay under
any other provision of law.
(2) Special rule.--In the case of an employee on leave
without pay or other similar status for any part of the
quarter prior to June 17, 1994, based on which the amount of
the allowance payments for such employee under subsection (a)
are computed, the ``amount of the last quarterly retention
allowance payment paid to such employee under the personnel
demonstration project prior to June 17, 1994'' shall, for
purposes of paragraph (1), be deemed to be the amount of the
allowance which would have been payable to such employee for
such quarter under such project had such employee been in pay
status throughout such quarter.
(c) Termination.--An employee's entitlement to quarterly
retention allowance payments under this section shall cease
when--
(1) the amount of such allowance is reduced to zero under
subsection (b), or
(2) the employee separates or moves to a position in which
the employee would not, prior to June 17, 1994, have been
entitled to receive an allowance under the demonstration
project,
whichever is earlier.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the bill we bring to the floor today is a
short-term reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program to allow
the FAA to make grants of up to $800 million by June 30 for airport
improvement projects across the Nation that have been held back because
the authorization bill has not been enacted.
Mr. Speaker, we are following this approach, I should say, very
reluctantly. Our preference has been for a multiyear program. We feel
it is good public policy to have a multiyear program so that airports
can count on a steady stream of revenue for these long-term projects of
improving airport runways, taxiways, and building new facilities.
Toward that end, in fact, the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation reported last September 14, 1993, a 3-year AIP
reauthorization for fiscal years 1994 through 1996, H.R. 2739. That
bill passed the House on October 13, 1993, by a vote of 384 to 42.
Unfortunately over in the other body, disputes unrelated to the essence
of AIP held up progress on that legislation; product liability, airport
fees, intrastate trucking. The Senate, tangled up with individual
Member concerns over those issues despite the best intentions and best
efforts of the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in the other body,
was unable to move a multiyear authorization bill to the Senate floor
and chose instead to pass a 60-day bill.
Mr. Speaker, unless we accept this approach and pass this short-term
authorization, the FAA will not be able to make grants for work to
begin before the current construction season expires, and that is not
long from now. We really have a very short window of time under which
bids can be developed and contracts let and construction underway
before the freeze sets in to the northern tier of States. Therefore,
reluctantly we are moving ahead with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly the essence of it is that we follow the
basic approach of the other body for an $800 million program with
authority to make grants through June 30 of this year. Our bill differs
from the Senate in how the funds will be allocated. The Senate bill
makes substantial changes in existing law, the effect of which is to
substantially increase discretionary funding that primarily benefits
larger airports. The added discretionary funds would be taken, we feel,
disproportionately from programs designed to benefit smaller airports.
Our bill struck a reasonable balance between large airports and small
airports.
Therefore, in the bill we bring to the House today, we follow the
same funding approach that the House approved in the bill last October.
Our bill preserves existing formulas that balance the interests of
large and small airports.
{time} 1230
We assure our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that on a
bipartisan basis we will work in conference to ensure that any changes
in discretionary funding will be changes that affect airports of all
sizes on a proportional basis, not just the smaller airports.
This bill also includes important provisions to require a study of
alternatives to splitting up the FAA, to wrenching out of FAA, as the
administration proposes to do, the air traffic control system and put
it into a separate Government corporation. The administration is making
a corporation proposal without having adequately studied indepth
alternatives, reforms that could be accomplished without destroying the
existing structure of FAA. Reforms that do not dismember the FAA, we
believe, are likely to be more effective, less costly to taxpayers, and
to the traveling public and bring greater assurance of continued safety
as the FAA operates the most efficient, the most effective, and the
safest air traffic control system in the world.
Our bill also assures that the 2,200 controllers participating in the
pay differential program that has brought controllers from less
demanding facilities to the most demanding facilities in the system, to
facilities in Chicago, New York, and California, will not this coming
June have their pay reduced, because the demonstration program expires
in June. Those controllers will suffer 15- to 20-percent pay losses
with all the attendant effect on controller morale that that will
entail unless we keep that pay differential program in place. I do not
think we want to compromise efficiency, effectiveness, worker output,
and safety by allowing the pay differential program to expire, and we
feel very strongly that the Senate should join with us in that
initiative, and I am confident they will.
We have also adopted a Senate provision which, in effect, freezes
airport rates and fees for 60 days because of airline dissatisfaction
with the current laws and procedures governing these fees. There has
been a recent court case that was decided by the Supreme Court that has
resulted in some controversy between airlines and airports over setting
of fees.
In adopting this Senate provision though, I want to make it very
clear that we do not favor this type of freeze as a long-term solution
to the problem, nor should it be considered a precedent. We are going
along with the freeze out of respect for the considerable and
commendable effort the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation
has invested in resolving this issue. We also have been assured by the
Department of Transportation it is unlikely to have any practical
effect in the 60-day period and that no fees are proposed to be
increased by airports, at least none that we know of, none to be frozen
in the 60-day period.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to commend my chairman, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for crafting this legislation and bringing it
to the floor today to hopefully resolve a dispute that has been ongoing
but which has seriously threatened the ability for us to move forward
with airport development in this country during this construction
season.
I think the fact that we have brought this expeditiously to the floor
today, he needs to be commended for that, and as he indicated, S. 2024
provides a short-term, 60-day extension for the airport improvement
program.
Two weeks ago, on April 19, S. 2024 passed the Senate by a voice
vote.
The AIP program lapsed at the end of fiscal year 1993 because, as has
been indicated, of disputes and delays that the Senate, the other body,
encountered as it attempted to report a regular, hopefully a multiyear
AIP reauthorization bill. I might add that the House passed its bill,
H.R. 2739, in a timely manner by an overwhelmingly strong vote of 384
to 12, so we bring what is a modified version of S. 2024 before the
House in an effort to salvage at least a portion of this year's
construction season for vitally important airport projects.
The bill seeks to preserve a huge number of construction-related jobs
that would otherwise be lost without enactment. The bill authorizes up
to $800 million in spending on AIP for eligible projects, for grants
made no later than June 30 of this year.
As Members, I am sure, are aware, the AIP program is financed
entirely from the aviation trust fund. No general revenues are at issue
or are utilized in this program, and the enacted fiscal year 1994
transportation appropriation bill already provides about $1.69 billion
in obligation limitations for the AIP program. But none of that money
has been spent, nor will it be spent without passage of this
legislation, and hopefully later on passage of a multiyear bill.
As I mentioned a moment ago, last fall the House did report our bill
with a substantial vote in favor of it. The AIP's fate in the Senate,
the other body, unfortunately continues to be hampered, as the
chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], said, by several
disputes that has led to a severe case of legislative gridlock, the
latest being a conflict between airports and air carriers over the
reasonableness of fees paid by air carriers to airports.
There is a provision in S. 2024 that attempts to put this debate to
rest during the 60-day life of the bill, and I will come back to that
in a moment.
The AIP program has several funding elements, the most important
being an entitlement grant program for commercial airports, and
eligible grant activities include projects enhancing capacity, safety,
security, such as construction of runways, taxiways, terminal
buildings. It is these sorts of activities that are most threatened by
failure to enact this bill heretofore.
In addition to establishing a 60-day, $800 million extension, the
bill, as passed by the other body, unfortunately made several changes
to the entitlement allocation formula which, in the opinion of the
Public Works and Transportation Committee leadership, are unacceptable.
We have, therefore, modified the bill to reflect the entitlement
formulas originally as part of the bill that we passed here some weeks
ago.
This legislation also contains three new provisions not previously
found in H.R. 2739 that Members should be aware of. First, as the
chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], has indicated,
there is a section directing the Department of Transportation to study
ways to reform the air traffic control system without changing its
basic organizational structure. The study must be completed within 180
days following enactment or before the Department submits legislation
on a corporation, whichever event might occur first. This provision is
in response to a recommendation to privatize our national air traffic
control system that was included in its as a part of the National
Performance Review of the Vice President, and on this point, I think it
is fair to say there is a very strong and bipartisan disagreement, or
at least questions about this, and also within the industry about the
benefits and implications of this proposal which we think deserve
extended consideration before we move rashly to change a system which
may well not require the radical proposal that is going to be before us
later today.
Second, the bill before us includes a provision making permanent a
pay differential program for air traffic controllers that is due to
expire and would cause or wreak great hardship on those presently
receiving that incentive pay bonus in New York, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and Chicago. This would make that program permanent, because
it has proven to work. It does have the desired effect of attracting
people to go to those high-stress areas.
Finally, in response to the airport-air carrier dispute on the
reasonableness of fees, our version, the House version, of the bill
includes a provision freezing fees at airports until June 30, 1994,
except if the Department finds complaints to be frivolous or, in the
alternative, if the Department finds fee increases to be reasonable, so
we do not make a total block on this, but we do circumscribe the
ability to do that.
We respect that between now and June 30, and we hope that between now
and June 30, the Department of Transportation will issue a proposed
rulemaking that will contain a credible dispute-resolution procedure
settling future conflicts arising between airports and air carriers as
well as including guidance on the meaning of reasonable fees.
{time} 1240
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge and encourage the Department to
publish this proposal as soon as possible since it has expertise in
this area and is better able to craft an appropriate rule.
We understand that that rule is in the process and is being readied
for publication. We hope that that happens promptly.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is vitually important to our
construction industry as we move into the summer construction season.
Thousands of well-paying, skilled labor jobs, and jobs at construction
supply firms are at stake and will be lost if we do not act promptly.
Mr. Speaker, the bill holds back $900 million for the airports and
air carriers to reach an agreement. In the face of the current tension
between airports and air carriers, I was heartened to note that the
chairman of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, stated his
commitment to bring a multiyear reauthorization bill to the Senate
floor before June 30, when this bill will expire, with or without an
agreement.
I think that is an important assurance to give the industry that we
are going to be looking to a multiyear authorization. But this stopgap
measure, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely vital.
I urge all Members to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
chairman of the full Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], former chairman of the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to first thank Mr. Oberstar, the
chair of our Aviation Subcommittee, and Mr. Clinger, the ranking
Republican, for their hard work and their work in bringing for House
consideration our version of S. 2024.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. However, I
must say that I wish we were here today passing a conference report on
a long-term aviation authorization, instead of this short-term
extension of the Airport Improvement Program.
Because the other body continues to have trouble passing a long-term
bill, we have before us an authorization of the Airport Improvement
Program through June 30 which will enable $800 million in new funds to
be used for critical airport development needs. Without this short-term
extension, a number of airports might well lose a good part of a
construction season.
The distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr.
Oberstar, has detailed the other provisions of the bill, so I will just
focus on the section that directs the Federal Aviation Administration
to continue a pay differential or allowance now being paid to
controllers, technicians, and inspectors in certain facilities where it
was difficult to retain and attract staff prior to this differential.
Air traffic controllers were simply choosing to work in lower workload
facilities for equivalent pay. This pay differential made it more
attractive to stay in places like the New York TRACON or Chicago Center
facilities, and according to an Office of Personnel Management report,
the program has been effective.
The distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr.
Oberstar, has detailed the other provisions of the bill, so I will just
focus on the section that directs the Federal Aviation Administration
to continue a pay differential or allowance now being paid to
controllers, technicians, and inspectors in certain facilities where it
was difficult to retain and attract staff prior to this differential.
Air traffic controllers were simply choosing to work in lower workload
facilities for equivalent pay. This pay differential made it more
attractive to stay in places like the New York TRACON or Chicago Center
facilities, and according to an Office of Personnel Management report,
the program has been effective.
The current differential expires this coming June, and if it does,
the pay of personnel in these critical facilities will be cut 12 to 15
percent, thereby creating obvious morale and staffing problems that
could have a significant effect on the air traffic control systems they
operate.
How is it that such a disturbing development is looming? In 1989, the
FAA put in a pay differential in order to attract air traffic
controllers and others to hard-to-staff facilities in New York,
Chicago, and California. At the same time, the FAA embarked on an
effort to completely overhaul and reform controller pay. This reform
was supposed to follow on the heels of the 5-year differential program
when it expires. Unfortunately, this reform effort was abandoned by the
previous administration and now the 5-year program is coming to an end
with nothing but a substantial pay cut to replace it.
This would be completely unfair to the air traffic controllers and
other FAA personnel now covered by the differential. It would also be
felt by the traveling public and the airline industry as staffing and
morale problems in these critical air traffic control facilities would
translate into less capability to move air traffic efficiently.
The differential in this bill is patterned after a very similar
situation involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York
field office. The Intelligence authorization enacted last December
extended a pay differential for that office that had expired last
September. I want to thank Chairman Clay and the staff of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service for their support and assistance in
this matter. Again, I wish to thank the chairman, Mr. Oberstar and Mr.
Clinger, the ranking Republican of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for
their fine work on this bill.
Again, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I take a few minutes first to express my great
appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the
ranking member, for his splendid participation and cooperation in
shaping the legislation we bring to the floor today.
These have been very difficult questions for us to resolve, short-
term extension and the many other substantive issues that we have
included in the bill.
The gentleman, as always, has been thoughtful, perceptive, and
understanding in his participation, and I greatly appreciate his
contribution, as always.
I also want to address a matter that we do cover in this legislation,
and that is a directive to the Department of Transportation to study
the alternatives to an air traffic control corporation. A report on
that will be released later today by the Secretary of Transportation
and the Vice President.
This study makes a recommendation that the administration remove from
the FAA the air traffic control functions and establish those functions
in a quasi-Government corporation to manage the air traffic control
system.
The ostensibly driving purpose for creating this Government
corporation is the desire to proceed more rapidly with modernization of
the air traffic control system and a perception on the part of those
conducting the study that the existing structures have not moved
sufficiently fast to modernize air traffic control.
I would like to point out that in my judgment this is a solution in
search of a problem.
Mr. Speaker, we have the world's most efficient, safest, dependable
air traffic control system. In the last 2 years major airlines have
operated without a fatality. There have been some problems in the
commuter airline and regional airline industry. We have held hearings
on those. They are not the result of problems in air traffic control.
Second, modernization has been underway for a decade. Congress has
appropriated every year as much funding as the administration has
requested, and sometimes more than administrations over the past decade
have requested. Some 87 percent of the national airspace system
modernization program has been funded, contracted, and delivered, and
48,700 of 55,800 systems have been delivered and are in place,
providing updated equipment, modernized facilities, to make the job of
air traffic controllers easier, more effective, and to make the
movement of aircraft through our vast system more efficient and safer.
En route projects, terminal projects, oceanic projects, surface
projects that have been put in place are all detailed in a documented
report prepared by the FAA and which the Department of Transportation
for some reason seems to want to keep a secret. They ought to be
telling the public what a wonderful job FAA has done in getting complex
technological systems in place efficiently.
{time} 1250
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the centerpiece of the
modernization program, the advanced automation system. This
subcommittee has held hearings repeatedly. We have identified problems
that need to be fixed. We have identified approaches to resolving those
problems. We have passed legislation to deal with those problems last
year. The bill I referred to earlier provides a 5-year term for the
Administrator of FAA, one of the most important steps to stabilizing
the FAA and ensuring its modernization procedures on a dependable
basis. We have changed FAA Administrators on the average of every 18
months with as much as a 6-month hiatus between one Administrator and
the next. This administration was no different. It was more than 6
months before an Administrator of FAA came on board, and now they want
to take this system, wrench it out of FAA, put air traffic control over
here someplace where we do not know how it is going to function, and
what is going to happen with it, with a big new bureaucracy to operate
it.
Put an Administrator in place, keep him there for 5 years, fix the
personnel pay system, as we propose to do with this current bill, get a
handle on contract management, management of large, complex,
multibillion-dollar technology modernization programs that need to be
administered in an efficient manner.
That is what needs to be done, and when the administration gets its
hands around that issue we will have some confidence in their ability
and their wisdom of overall change in FAA.
Get on with the problems immediately at hand, that is what we direct
the administration to do in the legislation that we are about to pass.
Section-by-Section Summary of the Airport Improvement Program Temporary
Extension Act of 1994
title i--airport improvement program
Section 101 is the AIP authorization:
Subsection (a) provides $800 million in new contract
authority for AIP grants for FY 1994. (The FY 1994
Appropriations Act has established an obligation ceiling of
$1.69 billion for AIP for FY 94. To date FAA has made grants
of $89 million in FY 94 from entitlement funds which were
unused in prior years. These grants will not be deducted from
the $800 million in new grant authority.)
Subsection (b) permits FAA to make FY 1994 AIP grants until
June 30, 1994.
Section 102 clarifies that the cap on entitlements in
existing law (44% of the AIP program) applies to the part
year program established by this bill.
Section 103 increases the minimum entitlement for primary
airports (those with more than 10,000 passengers per year)
from $400 thousand to $500 thousand per year.
Section 104 increases the set-aside for airport system
planning from \1/2\% to \3/4\% of total AIP spending.
Section 105 permits FAA to reimburse airports for expenses
incurred during Fiscal Year 94 to complete a project for
which the airport gets an AIP grant this year but the grant
is not enough to cover the full cost of the project. The
reimbursement can come only from the airport's entitlement
funds. (This section responds to the fact that this bill
authorizes less than half of the $1.69 billion available
under the Appropriations Act. The plan is to authorize the
remainder later this year after the controversy over airport
fees has been resolved. Under this provision an airport could
obtain a grant for less than the full cost of a project, and
later get another grant reimbursing it for the remaining
costs.)
Section 106 is a technical provision permitting
expenditures out of the Trust Fund for AIP grants authorized
by this bill.
Section 107 provides that during periods in which the AIP
authorization has expired, FAA can use funds recovered from
cost underruns in AIP grants to increase other AIP grants in
which there have been cost overruns. The increase for
overruns cannot exceed the percentage increase allowed by
existing law.
Title II freezes the fees airports charge to airlines until
June 30, 1994, if an airline files a complaint against a fee
increase. The freeze does not apply if DOT finds complaint is
frivolous, or makes a preliminary determination that fee is
reasonable, or if the increase is imposed under terms of a
prior agreement. There is also an exemption for fee increases
in Hawaii. The provision is the same as the Senate bill. The
purpose is to maintain the status quo on this controversial
issue.
Title III is a study of air traffic control system reform.
Section 1--Air Traffic Control System:
Subsection (a) directs DOT to study ways to reform the air
traffic control system without changing its basic
organizational structure (i.e. study of alternatives to the
Federal corporation).
Subsection (b) sets forth the components of the study.
Subsection (c) requires the study to be completed within
180 days of enactment or when DOT transmits its proposed
legislation to create a Federal corporation, whichever occurs
first. (DOT is expected to transmit its corporation proposal
on May 3, but it is not expected to be in the form of
proposed legislation.)
Subsection (d) requires the study to be transmitted to the
Senate Commerce and House Public Works Committees.
Title IV prevents reduction of pay levels established by
the pay demonstration program under which controllers,
maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, computer
operators, and engineers in 22 hard-to-staff facilities in
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have
received a 20% increase in pay. The demonstration program is
scheduled to end in June of this year. The provision only
protects against reductions in pay, it does not preserve the
differential indefinitely. The differential will be reduced
by an offset of future locality increases or other pay
increases.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Oberstar, and
the chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Public Works,
Mr. Mineta, for their inclusion of a provision in this bill to create a
pay differential for those air traffic controllers, airways systems
specialists, and flight standards aviation safety inspectors currently
receiving an incentive to stay at our Nation's busiest air traffic
facilities.
This retention allowance is needed to recruit and retain qualified
and experienced employees at hard-to-staff facilities such as those in
my own area of Illinois. The precursor to this pay differential program
is the pay demonstration project [PDP] scheduled to end this June. When
a demonstration project comes to an end, it is time to assess its
success. The evidence shows that this program is both successful and
needed.
Further, studies by the FAA conclude that there is nothing to
prohibit the conditions present prior to the PDP from recurring should
the program be stopped. Let's face it, if I have a choice to work in a
facility boasting the highest volume of air traffic in the Nation or
one with the lowest for the same pay, I'm a fool not to take the
smaller workload.
While the President's budget contends that the PDP is no longer
needed because locality pay has been put in place, it is clear this is
not the case. Locality pay is designed to address the cost-of-living in
an area. That means paying the rent or paying for the higher cost of
groceries in the region. It doesn't address the need to keep
experienced controllers at the facilities that most need their
expertise due to the complex and heavy workload.
Even if other controllers would be willing to come to the facility,
how experienced are they? Nearly all of the controllers that have
recently sought positions at the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control
Center in Aurora, IL, are level 1 controllers. It is not surprising
that there are a number that would like to come to Aurora since the
President's budget seeks to contract out all level 1 control towers. It
is further not surprising they want to come to Aurora when the fact
that crucial employees receive a pay differential is prominently
displayed on the application to bid for the position. Yet, it will take
between 3 to 5 years to train a level 1 controller to become a full
performance level [FPL] controller, Currently about 90 percent of the
controllers retained at the Aurora Center, since PDP went into effect,
are FPL controllers.
Thus, the question is, does the FAA spend all of its time and money
training these new recruits on the complex traffic patterns at our busy
facilities, or is it a better use of funds to keep those who are
experienced in their current positions through a pay differential? The
answer to this question is clear, chairmen have recognized.
The key to this issue it the safety of the flying public and the most
efficient use of Federal funds. We can go back to the pre-differential
days of serious safety errors and increased flying time and delays for
the aviation industry. We can go back to square one with new
controllers that are inexperienced at these facilities. Or, we can move
ahead with a pay differential that recognizes the expertise and value
of trained professionals.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this authorization of a
differential program for the essential safety employees at sites
crucial to our national airspace system.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2024, to
temporarily authorize expenditure under the Airport Improvement Program
so that grants may be made for airport construction and improvement
projects.
This legislation comes at a critical time to airports in my district.
As you know, the Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act of 1993 passed
the House on October 13, 1993, with my support. It authorizes $28
billion in fiscal year 1994-96 for improving and operating our nation's
airports and airways, and reauthorizes the Airport Improvement Program.
The Senate's companion bill, S. 1491, was placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar, but has not come to the Senate floor for
consideration.
Instead of considering S. 1491, the Senate passed S. 2024, which
provides temporary, 60-day obligational authority for the Airport
Improvement Program, on April 19, 1994. If enacted into law, the bill
would enable the Federal Aviation Agency to release $800 million over
the next 60 days.
Maine has a very short construction season of just 162 days.
Consequently, it is essential that AIP funds be released by May 27,
1994. For example, the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport has two
projects that depend on AIP funding: a three year runway reconstruction
project and a land purchase project. If AIP funding is not reauthorized
soon, the construction project will be delayed by 1 year and the land
purchase project will be jeopardized. The long-term viability of
Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport depends on these improvements.
The Airport Improvement Program provides vital financial assistance
to airports seeking to make capital investments and modernize their
facilities. Airports in rural districts tend to rely heavily on the
Airport Improvement Program due to the fact that fewer passengers
enplane and deplane. This means that rural airport restaurants, parking
facilities, and landing fees generate far less revenue than those at
larger airports. Yet small airports have the same needs as large
airports for properly paved taxiways, for runway lights to increase
visibility, and for adequate and safe terminal buildings.
The Airport Improvement Program is entirely funded out of the
Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its receipts through taxes levied on
airline tickets and aviation fuel. The program does not rely on general
tax revenues. It is in every sense a user-supported program.
A sound infrastructure is critical to a region's economic development
and recovery. I urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 2024, the
Temporary Airport Improvement Program authorization.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kleczka). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2024, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended, and the Senate bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________