[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.

                          ____________________