[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.

                          ____________________