[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 1994
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate bill (S. 2024) to
provide temporary obligational authority for the Airport Improvement
Program and to provide for certain in airport fees to be maintained at
existing levels for up to 60 days, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment to House amendment:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment to the text of the bill, insert:
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 App.
U.S.C. 2204(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after ``1992,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and $15,413,157,000 for fiscal years
ending before October 1, 1994'' before the period at the end.
(b) Obligational Authority.--Section 505(b)(1) of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C.
2204(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``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 App. U.S.C. 2206(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or reducing the amount authorized or''
and inserting ``the amounts'';
(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 App. U.S.C. 2206(b)(1)) is amended by striking
``$400,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
SEC. 104. DISCRETIONARY FUND.
(a) Minimum Amount To Be Credited.--Section 507(c) of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C.
2206(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Special rule.--In any fiscal year not less than
$325,000,000 of the amount made available under section
505(a) shall be credited to the discretionary fund
established by paragraph (1), and such $325,000,000 shall be
exclusive of amounts that have been apportioned in a prior
year under this section and which remain available for
obligation.
``(B) In any fiscal year in which the amount credited to
the discretionary fund pursuant to paragraph (1) is less than
$325,000,000, the total amount calculated under subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph shall be reduced by an amount which,
when credited to the discretionary fund, will, together with
the amount credited pursuant to paragraph (1), equal
$325,000,000.
``(C) The total amount, for any fiscal year, that is
subject to reduction pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be
the sum of--
``(i) the amount determined under subsection (a)(1);
``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (a)(2);
``(iii) the amount determined under subsection (a)(3);
``(iv) the amount determined under section 508(d)(1);
``(v) the amount determined under section 508(d)(2);
``(vi) the amount determined under section 508(d)(3);
``(vii) the amount determined under section 508(d)(4); and
``(viii) the amount determined under section 508(d)(5).
``(D) To accomplish a reduction pursuant to subparagraph
(B), each of the amounts described in subparagraphs (C)(i)
through (C)(viii), respectively, shall be reduced by an equal
percentage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on July 1, 1994.
SEC. 105. USE OF APPORTIONED AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS.
Section 508(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2207(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``10'' and inserting
``5'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``2.5'' wherever it
appears and inserting ``1.5''; and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``\1/2\'' and inserting
``\3/4\''.
SEC. 106. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAST EXPENDITURES.
Section 513(a)(2) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 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 previously executed during fiscal year 1994;
and
``(ii) its Federal share is only paid with sums appointed
under sections 507(a)(1) and 507(a)(2).''.
SEC. 107. TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT.
Section 513(b)(2) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
of 1982 (49 App. U.S.C. 2212(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence)
(A) by inserting after ``may be used'' the following: ``,
subject to the approval of the Secretary, (A)''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, and (B) by the sponsor of a reliever airport
for the types of project costs allowable under paragraph (1)
of this subsection, including project costs allowable for a
commercial service airport which annually has .05 percent or
less of the total enplanements in the United States.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``All or any
portion of the sums to be distributed at the discretion of
the Secretary under sections 507(c) and 507(d) for any fiscal
year may be distributed for use by primary airports each of
which annually has .05 percent or less of the total
enplanements in the United States for project costs allowable
under paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
SEC. 108. 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 Inter-modal 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. 109. UPWARD ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) In General.--The second sentence of section 505(b)(1)
of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 App.
U.S.C. 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 Secretay 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 V--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, subject to subsection (d), 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 the 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 (5 U.S.C.
5304 note));
(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 5334 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) Section 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.
(d) Special Payment Rule.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration may make payment for the costs
incurred under the program established by subsection (a) for
the period between June 18, 1994, and September 30, 1994,
following the end of the first full pay period that begins on
or after October 1, 1994, subject to appropriations made
available in fiscal year 1995.
(e) Study of Recruitment and Retention Incentives.--The
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
conduct a study of impediments that may exist to achieving
appropriate air traffic controller staffing levels at hard-
to-staff facilities. In conducting such study, the
Administrator shall identify and evaluate the extent to which
special incentives, of a financial or non-financial nature,
could be useful in recruiting or retaining air traffic
controllers at such facilities. The Administrator shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act a
report on (1) the results of such study, (2) planned
administrative actions, and (3) any recommended legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 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 West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation
which will release $800 million in funding for the Airport Improvement
Program. This bill will permit work to begin on important projects to
improve airport safety and capacity before the end of this year's
construction season.
We passed a short-term AIP bill 2 weeks ago. The bill now before us
represents a compromise between our bill and the short-term bill passed
by the other body.
The bill now before us is a good and fair compromise. In addition to
the provisions on airport funding, the bill includes all the provisions
which were in our original bill. I consider one of these provisions to
be of particular importance; the provision requiring the Federal
Aviation Administration to continue a pay differential program, which
was begun 5 years ago to attract air traffic controllers, technicians
and inspectors to hard to staff facilities in New York, Chicago, and
California.
Without this legislation, the pay differential would expire in June
and the pay of personnel in critical air traffic control facilities
would be cut 12 to 15 percent. This would create severe morale problems
which could impair air traffic control.
On AIP fundings, the bill now before us represents a fair compromise
between the House and the Senate. The compromise on funding formulas
strikes a good balance between the needs of large and small airports
and ensures that FAA will have enough discretionary money available to
fund those projects which can make the greatest difference to the
efficiency of the national aviation system.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have been unable to reach
agreement with the Senate on a long-term reauthorization bill. Airports
need to plan their capital development with knowledge that there will
be a stable Federal program in place for several years. Last September,
the House passed a 3-year reauthorization for fiscal years 1994 through
1996. Unfortunately, the other body has not been able to pass its own
multi-year bill because of unrelated disputes over general aviation
product liability and airport fees and charges. We are hopeful that
these disputes will be resolved soon and that the other body will be
able to pass a multi-year reauthorization bill in the near future.
In the meantime, it is critical to pass this short-term extension so
that we will not lose this year's construction season. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 2024 is very similar to legislation which was passed
by the House 2 weeks ago under the Suspension Calendar.
The bill before us provides a temporary authorization of the Airport
Improvement Program, allowing up to $800 million in new grants for
eligible airport construction activities.
Following passage of the earlier bill, we negotiated with our Senate
counterparts to reach a quick compromise on the shape of the temporary
AIP bill. On Thursday last, May 12, the Senate passed S. 2024. And if
the House approves the bill today, it will be sent to the President for
enactment.
Let me take just a moment to describe two major differences between
the bill reported by the House on May 3 and the bill now before us.
{time} 1950
Airports chiefly rely on two distinct pots of money, both of which
are part of Airport Improvement Program. One pot is distributed by
formula based on the number of passengers and volume of cargo that
passes through the airport. A second pot, the discretionary fund, is
managed by the Federal Aviation Administration based on their
assessment of national priorities.
Current law does not establish a minimum size of the discretionary
fund. Instead, after off the allocations and setasides have been
established for a variety of AIP-related programs, and these are all
done by formula, whatever remains is reserved for the discretionary
fund.
Over the last several years the size of the discretionary fund has
been steadily diminishing. The bill before us would change the
allocation practice by establishing that, at a minimum, the
discretionary fund will be authorized at $325 million. To achieve that
goal most AIP programs, with the exception of Alaskan airports, will be
subject to across-the-board reductions of the degree necessary to reach
the $325 million level. Whether or not reductions occur depends on the
obligation limitation set annually through the appropriations process.
I think this is a worthwhile provision, Mr. Speaker, giving greater
latitude to the FAA to fund expensive needed airport development
projects.
Mr. Speaker, another noteworthy modification in the bill before us
increases the minimum annual entitlement for our smallest commercial
airports by an additional $100,000. I strongly support this feature of
the bill. Airport projects, even minor ones, are very expensive, and
small airports generally do not have the resources to afford them. This
increase will be a significant help.
Mr. Speaker, while on the issue of small airports, I would like to
stress the importance of the Small Airport Fund. The House successfully
resisted attempts to cut this fund, as we have dealt with the matter
this year. Consequently, the bill before us does not change any of its
features. I want to use this opportunity to point out to Members that
small airports do not have the volume of passengers to make PFC's,
passenger facility charges, a practical option for financing expensive
capital projects such as new runways, terminal buildings, or the like.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, small airports do not have the same access
to bond markets, and typically their local government sponsors do not
have deep pockets to finance these very expensive projects at their
small airports.
The creation of the Small Airport Fund in the 1990 authorization, or
reauthorization, has been and continues to be a very important
supplement to their financial well-being, so I really welcome the fact
that we have been able in this bill to increase that fund or that
amount by $100,000.
Mr. Speaker, there are several other smaller, lesser changes in the
bill that I think I would describe, and would clearly be described, as
very technical in nature, and do not need to be dwelt upon at great
length here. I would just indicate that I strongly support this
measure, and I would encourage all Members to support it, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, section 301 of the bill directs the Secretary
of Transportation to undertake a comprehensive study of management,
regulatory, and legislative reforms which would enhance the efficiency
of the air traffic control system while preserving the existing
organizational structure under which the ATC system operates as part of
an integrated Federal Aviation Administration. The study will compare
the advantages and disadvantages of reform of the existing structure
with those of proposals to break up FAA into two parts; a government
corporation to operate air traffic control system and a rump FAA to
regulate the safety of the ATC system and carry out other FAA
responsibilities.
It should be clearly understood that the requirements of section 301
for a study are not met by the discussion in the administration's
recent report ``Air Traffic Control Corporation Study''. We do not
regard the brief discussion of internal reform in this document as the
in-depth, objective analysis called for by section 301.
It is somewhat surprising that there is any discussion of internal
reform in the administration's report, since early this year the
administration announced that it would no longer be studying
alternatives to a breakup of FAA, but would focus its study on the
details of establishing a corporation. The decision not to study
internal reform was severely criticized. In an apparent response to the
criticism, it was decided to have the final report recommending an ATC
corporation include a brief discussion of internal reform.
In discussing internal reform, the study concedes, as it must, that
FAA's alleged problems with legislative and regulatory limitations
governing personnel, procurement and funding could be solved by
eliminating or modifying these requirements, while keeping FAA as an
integrated Government department.
The remaining question is what are the advantages and disadvantages
of going beyond these reforms and breaking up FAA into two units. On
this complex question, the report contains only a few sentences, which
appear to assume that only government corporations, and not government
departments, can develop the management skills needed to carry out
complex technological programs. This assumption ignores the poor
results achieved when governmental or quasi-governmental corporations
were formed to run the Postal Service and Amtrak. This assumption of
corporate superiority is also inconsistent with discussion, in the
report and elsewhere, in which the administration speaks admiringly of
the skills and dedication which the ATC workforce shows in running a
safe and efficient system in the face of the allegedly burdensome
personnel and procurement rules. Why couldn't this skilled and
dedicated workforce achieve all the benefits attributed to a
corporation if legal and regulatory restraints are removed, but FAA
remains intact.
Our legislation contemplates a more complete, objective analysis of
FAA than is found in the administration's corporation report. There
needs to be a more focused discussion on which of the requirements
governing personnel, procurement, and budget are believed to create the
greatest problems and how these requirements might be changed. There
needs to be serious consideration of the problems which have been
raised by the Congress, the General Accounting Office, the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, the National Academy of Public
Administration, and others that splitting up FAA will require a new
allocation of responsibilities between two Government agencies, which
will create risks and uncertainties. It must also be recognized that if
a government corporation is freed from personnel and procurement
restrictions applying to the Government generally, the corporation will
have to set up its own systems to deal with these matters. There are
risks and uncertainties inherent in establishing these new systems.
Without spelling out every detail of the study required by the
pending legislation, we wish to make it clear that the legislation
contemplates much more than the brief, advocacy discussion included in
the administration's ATC report.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record memoranda from the
Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Transportation on the
scoring of the bill for budget purposes, and on the amount of contract
authority authorized by the bill:
memorandum
To: Donna McLean, House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.
From: John Patterson, Budget Analyst, Congressional Budget
Office.
Subject: Airport Improvement Reauthorization
Date: May 9, 1994.
If the temporary reauthorization amends the cumulative
contract authority for the Airport Improvement Program to
$15,413,157,000 for fiscal year 1994, does not amend the FY
1994 obligation limitation of $1,690,000,000, and ends
funding for the program on June 30, 1994, the Congressional
Budget Office will score -$65,343,000 in budget authority
(see table) and will not score a change in outlays.
Scoring of temporary airport improvement reauthorization
Contract Authority through FY 1993......................$15,966,700,000
Less: February 1994 Rescission.............................$488,200,000
________________
Current Level of Contract Authority......................15,478,500,000
================
New Level of Contract Authority..........................15,413,157,000
Less: Current Level of Contract Authority................15,478,500,000
________________
Change in level of contract authority.......................-65,343,000
If the long-term reauthorization raises the cumulative
level of contract authority to $17,528,700,000 for FY 1994
and does not amend the FY 1994 obligation limitation, the
Congressional Budget Office will score $2,115,543,000 in
budget authority (see table) and will not score a change in
outlays.
Scoring of long-term airport improvement reauthorization
Level of Contract Authority after Long-Term Reauthorizat$17,528,700,000
Less: Level of Contract Authority After Temporary Reautho15,413,157,000
________________
Change in Level of Contract Authority.....................2,115,543,000
================
Scoring of two bills combined
Scoring of Temporary Reauthorization.......................-$65,343,000
Plus: Scoring of Long Term Reauthorization................2,115,543,000
________________
Total Scoring.............................................2,050,200,000
Department of Transportation,
Office of Assistant Secretary,
Washington, DC, May 10, 1994.
To: David Heymsfeld, Majority Aviation Counsel; David
Shaffer, Minority Aviation Counsel.
From: Eugene Conti Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Subject: AIP Authorization.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation has been
asked for its opinion on how much new AIP contract authority
would be established by an amendment authorizing a cumulative
contract authority level of $15,413,157,000.
It is our opinion that the above number results in $800
million in new contract authority for the AIP, and in
addition authorizes $89.583 million for carryover
entitlements for FY 1994.
The above figures reflect a change in the assumed level of
unobligated contract authority available at the end of FY
1993, compared to what was shown in the President's FY 1995
Budget--an increase from $1,092.4 million to $1,443.1
million. This increase is an adjustment for certain prior
year rescissions (the adjustment was not recorded when the
cumulative contract authority was increased.) The difference
between the cumulative authorization level of $15,966.7
million and cumulative obligations to date is $1,443.1
million--the adjusted level of carryover into FY 1994.
FAA and OMB agree with the amounts assumed above and the
table below:
Thousands
Unobligated balance as of 9/30/93............................$1,443,126
Carryover entitlements and new FY 1994 program.................-889,583
________________
Excess CA given FY 1993 $15,966.7 million cumulative level......553,543
================
Cumulative CA level, end of FY 1993..........................15,966,700
Excess CA given new program and carryover......................-553,543
________________
Necessary CA needed to fund $889 million program.............15,413,157
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
support of this legislation to reauthorize the Airport Improvement
Program. Our Nation's airports have been without critical Federal
funding since last year when the AIP program expired. Although the
House passed H.R. 2739 last October to reauthorize the program for 3
years, the Senate has been unable to pass similar long-term legislation
due to a dispute over the regulation of airport rates and charges.
Therefore, we need this legislation to restore some money to our
aviation infrastructure.
This bill will permit FAA to issue $800 million in new AIP grants
until June 30. There will be an additional $89 million in entitlements
carried over from prior years that will be available on top of the $800
million.
In crafting legislation for only part of the year, several technical
budgetary scoring problems were encountered. I am pleased that these
problems have been resolved. We have a memorandum from the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirming that this bill will not
create any scoring problems or change in outlays either now or when the
long-term authorization ultimately passes. The CBO scoring of the bill
also reflects the fact that it has already counted the rescission of
$488 million in contract authority for the California earthquake
relief. In addition, we have a memorandum from the Department of
Transportation confirming that the cumulative authorization in this
bill will result in $800 million in new contract authority for AIP.
Due to the complex funding allocations in the law and the fact that
the authorization is for only part of the fiscal year, the exact amount
of money to be allocated to each entitlement and set-aside has been a
matter of some uncertainty. Therefore we have worked with the FAA in
drafting appropriate legislative language to ensure that the money is
allocated in the way Congress intends. In this effort, I would
particularly like to thank Bert Randall, Lowell Johnson, and Jim
Borsari of the FAA staff for their assistance. The charts they have
provided for us show that, for example, primary airports will receive
$550.7 million over the full year and $285.3 million under this bill
and the small airport fund will receive $78.7 million over the full
year and $39.4 million under this bill. We have drafted the legislation
based on these numbers and we would expect the FAA to implement the
program consistent with the numbers they have provided us.
The allocation of the AIP money in this bill reflects a compromise
between the House and Senate versions. The Senate sought to increase
the discretionary fund in order to provide more money to large
airports. The original House bill sought to fairly allocate money
between the large and small airports. The compromise we are considering
today does create a larger discretionary fund but it does so in a way
that does not unduly burden small airports. In fact, this bill raises
the minimum entitlement for small primary airports and preserves the
integrity of the small airport fund which the Senate had sought to cut.
In addition, the bill for the first time makes terminal development
at non-hub primary airports eligible to receive discretionary money.
This is the same provision that passed the House last year as part of
the long term reauthorization. At the time, there was some confusion
about exactly which airports were affected and how much they could
receive. It should now be clear that the provision is designed to
permit non-hub primary airports to receive money from the discretionary
and small airport funds for terminal development. It is not designed to
affect the cap that applies to other classes of airports. There is also
a slightly different provision in this bill that applies to reliever
airports. Both will enhance the ability of small airports to construct
or improve their terminal buildings.
There are several other provisions in the bill that I would also like
to mention.
Section 106 is a special reimbursement provision. As a general rule,
the law does not permit airports to get reimbursement for work already
done. But in this case, where a bill is being enacted for only part of
the year, a special reimbursement provision seemed justified. This
provision permits an airport that gets a grant from this part-year bill
to continue with the work and get reimbursed, after the long-term bill
is passed, for any costs that were not covered by the original grant.
The reimbursement could only come from the airport's entitlement money.
Section 109 addresses a problem that has arisen at Blair County
Airport and elsewhere. In some instances, an airport will get an AIP
grant to purchase land only to find that the ultimate cost of the
project is more than the original grant. Current law permits this
overrun to be paid out of the money recovered from underruns in other
grants. However, a recent interpretation of the law held that this
could only be done while an AIP authorization was in place. This
section will correct that interpretation retroactive to October 1,
1993.
Title II of the bill basically freezes airport fees until June 30.
The dispute between airports and airlines over airport fees has been
the stumbling block in the Senate to a longer term AIP reauthorization.
This short-term freeze will preserve the status quo while this
controversy is being resolved. With respect to this controversy
generally, I would simply note that airports are already prohibited
from diverting airport revenue to non-aviation purposes. But if
airports are able to build up huge surpluses, the temptation and
political pressure to divert revenue will be too great. Last summer's
dispute between Los Angeles and the airlines showed that airports could
use their monopoly position to dramatically increase rates and that
they would try to divert the resulting revenue off the airport for non-
aviation purposes.
Title III of the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to
study the air traffic control system and suggest ways to reform it
without converting it to a Federal corporation. I have an open mind on
the administration's corporation proposal although I am concerned about
the safety implications of it. However, I do think it is important to
fully consider other ways to improve the FAA. DOT's May 1994
corporation study does not do this and nothing that DOT has done so far
meets the requirements of Title III.
Title IV grandfathers those controllers and other FAA safety
personnel who are now receiving bonuses under the FAA's pay
demonstration program. It is really a very fiscally conservative
provision since it does not add any new employees to the program and it
does not envision that existing recipients would get any pay increases
until the normal pay scale catches up to their salary level. However,
it does prevent the blow to morale that would occur if these employees
should suddenly suffer a pay cut as would happen in June without this
provision. Also, the provision gives the FAA the discretion to pay the
fourth quarter 1994 bonus either this fiscal year or in fiscal year
1995.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill quickly before
the construction season is lost. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate bill, S. 2024.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds have voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate bill was concurred in.
____________________