[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2739, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 2739) to amend the Airport and 
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

       (For conference report, see proceedings of the House of 
     Friday, August 5, 1994, at page H7051).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] 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 California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 
2739, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.
  At the outset, I want to thank my colleagues who have worked long and 
hard to pass this important piece of legislation. The Chair and ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Congressmen Oberstar and 
Clinger, have labored for over a year to pass a bill that adequately 
meets the needs of the aviation community.
  I would also like to recognize the ranking member of the full 
committee, Congressman Shuster, for his support of this legislation. In 
addition, due to the face that the Senate amendment included a 
comprehensive trucking provision, I would like to thank the Chair and 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, 
Congressmen Rahall and Petri, for their efforts to resolve an issue 
with major economic consequences for the motor carrier industry.
  Also, I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the contributions 
of the Committees on Ways and Means, Science and Technology, Banking, 
Education and Labor, and Foreign Affairs, without whose valuable 
assistance this conference report would not have been possible.
  Last, I want to acknowledge the work of my Senate colleagues, the 
Chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Senators 
Hollings and Danforth, as well as the Chair and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, Senators Ford and Pressler, who were 
instrumental in reaching a final agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, Congressman Oberstar will describe in 
detail the conference agreement with respect to the aviation issues. 
For my part, I want to note two issues which I consider important.
  The conference report provides for the establishment of a 5-year term 
of office for the FAA Administrator. For too long the FAA has not had 
the experienced leadership it requires because its Administrators 
rarely stay more than 18 months. No sooner does an Administrator obtain 
the experience and knowledge necessary to effectively run the complex 
agency, when he would leave. I believe the term of office provision 
sends a strong signal that this is unacceptable.
  Perhaps most importantly, this legislation would establish funding 
for the Airport Improvement Program through fiscal year 1996. I think I 
speak for many individuals and airports when I say that I am glad to 
see a multiyear authorization in this bill. This will enable airports 
and the FAA to develop long term planning of airport projects, and it 
will provide the necessary stability and continuity for doing so.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address a very important motor 
carrier issue which is included in the conference report.
  In the interest of saving the American consumer $3 to $8 billion 
annually, this conference report would preempt State regulation 
of price, routes and services of motor carriers, as well as air 
carriers and carriers affiliated with direct air carriers through 
common controlling ownership when transporting property in intrastate 
commerce. We are preempting State economic regulation in the trucking 
industry as we did many years ago in the airline industry.

  At the same time, States will continue to be able to regulate other 
noneconomic aspects of the industry, that is, safety, routing for 
hazardous cargo, and minimum amounts of insurance as well as certain 
other regulations that apply to trucks.
  In addition, motor carriers are provided with options regarding 
certain standard transportation practices which they may choose to be 
regulated in, by States that regulate those practices, as long as that 
regulation is no more burdensome than Federal regulation of those 
practices.
  The bill sent over from the Senate contained a provision which 
preempted State regulation of price, routes, and services for only some 
carriers and retained regulation for others. This would have created 
considerable inequities within the motor carrier industry.
  Our response was to craft a provision which would free all motor 
carriers and trucking services of air carriers from the constraints of 
State regulation relating to price, routes, and services; thereby 
creating a level playing field for all.
  I want to emphasize that the trucking provisions in this conference 
report are part of a major effort by this Congress to reduce economic 
regulation of the trucking industry to increase reliance on competitive 
market areas, and to reduce the size and role of Government 
bureaucracies.
  This first step was the enactment of the Negotiated Rates Act late 
last year. That bill untangled a major regulatory mess which burdened 
shippers all over America.
  The second step is this conference report, which will eliminate State 
economic regulation of truck transportation.
  And the third step will be adoption of legislation dramatically 
cutting back the regulatory role of the ICC over interstate trucking--
specifically by eliminating the requirement to file rates with the ICC. 
We hope to have legislation accomplishing this third step on the House 
floor very soon.
  Taken together, these three bills will constitute the largest 
deregulation initiative in the transportation industry since the Motor 
Carrier Act of 1980. And while the Negotiated Rates Act has temporarily 
increased the responsibilities of the ICC, the cutback in ICC's 
interstate regulatory functions will allow the total size of the agency 
to be reduced by one-third.
  We will have accomplished not just agency reduction, but also 
regulatory reduction. American industry will benefit both from the 
lower cost of a reduced regulatory burden and from the increased 
efficiencies of a more marketplace-driven transportation industry.
  Mr. Speaker, in all, the conference agreement on H.R. 2739 strikes a 
delicate balance on important aviation and motor carrier issues facing 
our Nation.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has taken a long time to get to this point--too long, 
I think most of us would point out. But I am pleased to join the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], in bringing the conference report on the airport improvement 
program to the floor today.
  It was just about a year ago that this body passed the multiyear 
reauthorization of the AIP program. Since then other issues such as 
product liability and airport fees have held up further action in the 
other body, but mercifully the logjam was finally broken and the bill 
was passed in the other body and the differences between the House and 
the Senate were resolved in a 1-day conference last week.
  The conference report makes many important legislative changes. The 
one that got the most attention as a matter of fact was not even an 
aviation issue. Rather, it was a surface transportation issue involving 
the deregulation of trucks. The legislation makes a very significant 
change in this area, as Chairman Mineta has pointed out, by removing 
unnecessary and anticompetitive State trucking regulations that impede 
efficient interstate and intrastate trucking operations. This is going 
to save businesses and consumers more than $5 billion. The bills on the 
earlier deregulation initiatives of the Reagan and Bush administrations 
and the conference substitute modifies the original Senate provision by 
leveling the playing field among all segments of the industry and 
including all intrastate trucking firms within its coverage. It is in 
effect absolute deregulation of the entire industry.
  In aviation, the most controversial aspect of this legislation was 
the provision on a airport rates and changes. This provision is 
designed to give some relief to financially strapped airlines and, more 
importantly, insure that airports do not build up surpluses that can 
then be converted to nonaviation purposes. The threat of revenue 
diversion was probably the prime motivation for the rates and changes 
provisions within the regulation.
  There is an old saying: ``Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy 
behind the tree.'' Mr. Speaker, in this case, it is the airline 
passenger who is the ``guy behind the tree.'' Many cities with 
significant revenue needs may see the airline passenger as an easy 
mark, a patsy. The passenger passing through the local airport is in no 
position to complain if higher airport fees on airlines are passed on 
to the customer. Yet those fees can raise the cost of air travel and at 
the same time undermine the national air transportation system. 
Therefore, it is important that cities not be tempted to view their 
local airport as a cash cow that can be milked to the detriment of 
airline passengers. This legislation takes a strong stand against that 
practice.
  At the same time we recognize that procedures established in this 
bill should not undermine the legitimate efforts of airports to raise 
funds to improve their facilities. It is important that this 
legislation not be used by airlines to block airport improvement 
projects that could and would increase airline competition.
  Therefore, the conferees were very careful to modify some of the more 
onerous provisions. In particular, the escrow provision as modified in 
a way that was acceptable to the financial community while still 
insuring that airlines would get paid if they win in a fee dispute 
case. This was a very delicate negotiation, but I think it was one that 
left everybody relatively satisfied with the result.

  Also with respect to the civil penalty provision, the conferees 
explained that the ability to compromise a civil penalty includes 
giving an airport the chance to cure a violation.
  Another provision with perhaps far-reaching implications is the 
section on slots. The slot restrictions at the four high-density 
airports have become a significant constraint on insuring competition 
on international air service and on service to smaller communities. 
This legislation will insure that small communities that have lost 
service to the O'Hare Airport can get it back with flights that are at 
times of maximum passenger demand. This should save the Government 
money since in many cases the service to O'Hare can be provided without 
subsidy, thereby replacing subsidized service that now goes to other 
airports.
  Lost in all the discussion of these legislative provisions, Mr. 
Speaker, is perhaps the most important aspect of this bill--the release 
of new funds for airport improvements.

                              {time}  1350

  Our airports have important infrastructure needs that this 
legislation will help to meet. In this connection, I would like to once 
again draw attention to the disturbing decrease in the obligation 
ceiling for the airport improvement program. Some have indicated that 
the importance of AIP funding is diminished by airports' ability to 
assess passenger facility charges. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. The PFC is only intended to supplement the AIP program. This was 
made clear when the PFC was enacted in 1990, and it is just as true 
today.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge full funding in the future for 
the AIP program. For now, I would urge the FAA to spend the money 
provided by this bill wisely, fairly considering the needs of all our 
airports, both large and small.
  I want to at this time commend the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], chairman of the subcommittee, for the very hard work that 
has gone into this legislation, for his always skillful ability to 
blend together disparate views into a very good bill, and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta], the chairman of our full committee, and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the ranking member of 
the full committee. I think it has been a notable effort on all hands 
and it is going to benefit the air travelers in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar] the chairman of our Subcommittee on Aviation who has done 
such an excellent job in his stewardship of this subcommittee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta] our chairman, for those kind words and for yielding time. I 
also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] for his kind words and extend to him my gratitude and my 
appreciation for the working relationship we have had throughout these 
many years, and particularly again on this legislation. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania has always been available at any time needed, has 
always contributed thoughtful suggestions and insights into legislation 
that we handle, and has been a craftsman of the first order, and I 
appreciate the working relationship we have had throughout these years.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report will enact the 3-year Federal 
Aviation Administration programs at a total program authorization level 
over the 3 years of $28.38 billion. The legislation, of course, 
includes reauthorization on a multiyear basis of the Airport 
Improvement Program which we have been trying to pass on a multiyear 
basis since 1992. Unfortunately, the bill has been held hostage to 
continuing delays in the other body by other unrelated issues, which 
under Senate rules make it an easy target when there is legislation 
that is of a must nature, as the AIP program certainly is.
  We do have to act quickly. $800 million hangs in the balance, funding 
that airports desperately need, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said 
just a moment ago, to get underway with capacity enhancement projects.
  At the beginning of this decade we in the Subcommittee on Aviation, 
after extensive hearings and consultation with a wide range of aviation 
experts, including airport managers, airport executives, airlines, 
airline labor, the traveling public as represented by various groups, 
identified a need of $10 billion a year over the balance of this decade 
to enhance capacity at our airports and at least hold down, if not 
totally reduce at certain airports, delays.
  So this legislation is critically important if we are to keep faith 
with the traveling public and put to best use the aviation tax dollars 
that they are contributing every time they board an aircraft to fly 
throughout this country.
  The conference report I believe is an outstanding product that 
includes almost all the provisions of the House bill. I especially am 
pleased that the conference report includes a 5-year term for the FAA 
administrator.
  This provision will do more for FAA than practically anything else we 
could do by giving the continuity of leadership, which is so urgently 
needed, to reform this agency, to give it stability, to give it a sense 
of direction, to give the administrator the leadership authority that 
the administrator needs, to ensure that we stay on schedule and within 
budget on the $30 billion modernization program for the Air Traffic 
Control Program.
  The conference report made important changes in provisions adopted by 
the other body. In particular, I am pleased that the conference report 
does not include the Senate provision that would have allowed the State 
of Hawaii to regulate intrastate air transportation. That provision 
could very well have set a precedent that could have spread to other 
States in similar circumstances and seriously undermined the 
deregulation of interstate air transportation, which has proven to be 
so successful in saving passengers billions of dollars in air travel 
costs.
  The conference report also modifies the controversial provision in 
the Senate bill that requires, or would have required, airports to 
place proposed increases in airport fees in an escrow account while DOT 
would review the challenge over fees. The financial community was 
concerned that the escrow provision could delay payments to 
bondholders, and that as a result, buyers of bonds would demand higher 
rates of interest, thereby increasing airport construction costs.

  To eliminate this provision, the conferees, after long deliberation, 
agreed to replace this escrow account concept with a procedure in which 
airlines would pay disputed fees under protest with the airport being 
required to post a surety bond guaranteeing that the fee would be 
repaid if the airport should lose the case.
  The bond community has agreed that the payment under protest 
provision is not likely to lead to higher interest rates, and this 
compromise has received wide acclaim throughout the aviation community.
  The conference report also allows airports to use passenger facility 
charges to finance compliance with Federal mandates on the air side of 
the airport, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air 
Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  That eligibility, I want to emphasize, is limited to compliance 
required, with Federal mandates, to build airfield capacity. It would 
include environmental mitigation efforts to permit air side development 
to go forward. We are not extending funding with PFC's to Federal 
mandates on the land side of the airport.
  This PFC authority will give airports an additional means of 
financing their required compliance with Federal mandates where such 
requirements are directly related to and part of a capacity enhancement 
project. I want to make it very clear what we are doing with this 
language is very limited, applies to the air side only, and I do not 
want any subsequent expanision of this language to include anything 
other than what the conferees have very strictly and carefully limited 
this language to.
  The bill outlaws gambling on international flights, including those 
on foreign airlines. This provision will remove a competitive inequity, 
that is, that under existing law, U.S. airlines are prohibited from 
offering gambling on international flights, but foreign airlines are 
not.
  There is not time to discuss all of the 70-some aviation items 
covered by the conference agreement, but I will include a very brief 
summary of the main provisions. Especially I want to call attention to 
the slot language that is so important.
  I particularly want to pay tribute to counsel on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, Dave Heymsfeld, who has devoted an enormous amount of time, 
and particularly some very, very creative suggestions as we went along 
through this process that helped resolve some difficult roadblocks or 
items that could have been roadblocks between our version and the 
Senate version of this language.
  I would also like to pay tribute to David Shaffer on the Republican 
side who has participated, as this staff always does, on a totally 
bipartisan basis and contributed many hours of time and creative ideas 
to helping to get this legislation through, and also want to mention 
all the other members of our staff who contributed yeoman work.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the main provisions of the 
conference report.

 Main Provisions of Conference Report--Federal Aviation Administration 
                       Authorization Act of 1994

       (1) AIP Authorization: $2.105 billion for FY 94 ($889 
     million already authorized by interim act, P.L. 103-260); 
     $2.161 billion for FY 95; $2.214 billion for FY 96.
       (2) F&E Program: Authorizes a total of $7.9 billion for FY 
     94-96.
       (3) FAA operations: Authorizes a total of $14 billion for 
     FY 94-96 and limits spending from Trust Fund to 70% of FAA's 
     budget (current law 75%).
       (4) Establishes a fixed term of office of 5 years for the 
     FAA Administrator.
       (5) Slots:
       (a) Requires Secretary to ensure that slots are made 
     available for the Essential Air Service program. Slots are to 
     be provided by exemption unless exemption would significantly 
     increase operational delays. Slot transfers would be required 
     only if an exemption could not be issued.
       (b) Authorizes exemption for the creation of additional 
     slots at airports other than Washington National for foreign 
     air transportation and new entrants.
       (c) Permits carriers to ``slide'' slots from one hour to 
     another at Washington National Airport, so long as this does 
     not increase the total number of daily slots, or produce an 
     increase of more than two slots in any single hour.
       (6) Requires DOT to complete on going study of the high 
     density rule by January 31, 1995 and to undertake follow up 
     rulemaking.
       (7) Airport Fees:
       (a) Establishes new expedited procedures for resolving 
     airport fee disputes, with an initial decision by 
     administrative law judge, and a 120 day deadline for DOT's 
     final decision.
       (b) During the 120 day period, increased fees may be paid 
     under protest and the airport must post a surety bond or 
     letter of credit to guarantee immediate repayment to the 
     airlines if the fee case is successful.
       (8) Revenue Diversion:
       (a) Establishes new and enhanced sanctions to enforce the 
     assurance against revenue diversion, including civil 
     penalties (up to a limit of $50,000), and denial of new AIP 
     and PFC applications.
       (b) Prohibits the imposition by a state or local government 
     of a new tax or charge imposed exclusively on airport 
     businesses or airport permitees if the tax proceeds are not 
     used for airport purposes.
       (c) Adopts House provisions that use of airport revenue 
     off-airport will be a factor militating against AIP 
     discretionary grants (modified to apply only in cases in 
     which the dollar amount of revenue diverted increases above 
     1994 level).
       (9) Allows PFCs to be used to fund compliance with 
     specified federal mandates (ADA, Clean Air Act, Federal Water 
     Pollutions Control Act) in the case of airside construction 
     or environmental mitigation to permit airside construction.
       (10) Requires DOT to complete in 6 months the ongoing 
     rulemaking to reduce the rate of random drug testing for 
     aviation personnel.
       (11) Prohibits airports from imposing PFCs on frequent 
     flyers.
       (12) Provides that before approving a PFC, DOT must find 
     that the application includes adequate justification for each 
     of the projects proposed.
       (13) Prohibits the transportation or use of gambling 
     devices on international flights to the U.S. by U.S. carriers 
     or by foreign air carriers. Requires a DOT study of whether 
     gambling should be permitted, including legislative 
     recommendations.
       (14) The Conference agreed not to include the controversial 
     provision in the Senate bill allowing the state of Hawaii to 
     regulate intrastate air transportation.

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to join 
with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the chairman of the 
subcommittee in commending the staffs on the hard work that went into 
this bill, Mr. Heymsfeld, Mr. Shaffer and others, who worked long and 
diligently to bring this bill to fruition. It was not an easy 
assignment, and it required a great deal of diligence and fortitude to 
stick with it. But they did a superb job and I commend them for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a very valued member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to H.R. 2739. With approval of this conference report, we will 
finally reauthorize the Airport Improvement Program--which has remained 
unauthorized since October of last year--and allow for the distribution 
of critical airport construction funds. Several other important 
aviation reforms will also be accomplished.
  As the ranking Republican on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, 
I also want to take a moment to highlight section 601 of the conference 
report. Section 601 preempts State regulation of prices, routes and 
services of air carriers and all motor carriers when transporting 
property.
  I want to emphasize that all motor carriers are exempted from State 
economic regulation. One of the concerns regarding the provision as 
passed by the Senate was that the language was so vague that it was 
unclear which carriers would be covered by the preemption and which 
would not. But it was clear that not all carriers would be deregulated. 
The concern raised by this unequal treatment was evident at a recent 
hearing on this issue held by the Surface Transportation Subcommittee.
  So one of our major purposes in crafting the language included in 
this conference report was to be sure that all carriers were treated 
equally and that no type or class of carrier had a competitive 
advantage over another.
  I believe we have accomplished that here.
  I also want to be clear that we are preempting prices, routes, and 
services only--we are not preempting State authorities relating to 
safety, hazardous materials, truck size and weights, or insurance 
requirements. Those authorities and others remain unchanged by section 
601.
  In addition, carriers may elect to come under regulation of certain 
standard transportation practices if a State chooses to regulate in 
certain specified areas, but the State regulation must be no more 
burdensome than Federal regulation on these same matters.
  Just as the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 led to dramatic changes in the 
way of doing business in interstate trucking, so will section 601 lead 
to important changes in intrastate trucking. Carriers currently face a 
patchwork of regulation in 41 States, resulting in operational 
inefficiencies, higher costs, and a paperwork burden. Under section 
601, these will be removed, to be replaced with a competitive 
marketplace that allows for greater efficiencies and innovation on the 
part of the trucking industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to reauthorizing the Airport Improvement 
Program and allowing for the distribution of critical airport 
construction funds, the conference report includes another very 
important provision which will revolutionize our transportation 
industry.
  Section 601 of H.R. 2739 preempts State regulation of prices, routes, 
and services of air carriers, carriers affiliated with a direct air 
carrier through common controlling ownership, and all other motor 
carriers (including motor private carriers) when transporting property. 
The preemption for air carriers and carriers affiliated with a direct 
air carrier is found in section 41713(b)(4) of title 49 of the United 
States Code (the Federal Aviation Act) and is identical to the current 
intrastate preemption for air carriers in section 41713(b)(1). All 
other motor carriers are deregulated under the Interstate Commerce Act, 
section 11501 of title 49.
  The preemption applies only to economic regulation of prices, routes 
and services and does not restrict authorities of the States to 
regulate safety, insurance requirements, truck size and weights, and 
hazardous materials. However, no new authority is provided in these 
areas.
  In addition, a State may choose to regulate four specific standard 
transportation practices--relating to uniform cargo liability rules, 
uniform bills of lading or receipts, uniform cargo credit rules, and 
antitrust immunity for interlining, classifications and mileage 
guides--but may do so only in a manner that is no more burdensome than 
Federal regulation on the same subject matter. Importantly, it is up to 
each individual carrier to determine whether it wants to come under 
State regulation in terms of these four operating practices. Conferees 
decided to make regulation of these practices optional on the part of 
carriers since the industry was divided as to its desire to be covered 
under this regulation.
  While the intrastate deregulation provisions originally passed by the 
Senate in S. 1491 would have applied only to certain carriers, language 
we have included in this conference report will provide equal treatment 
to all carriers and no type or class of carrier will have a competitive 
advantage over another. We believed that this equitable treatment was 
essential and was our primary goal in modifying the Senate provision.
  Just as the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 led to dramatic changes in the 
way of doing business for interstate trucking, so will section 601 lead 
to important changes in intrastate trucking. Currently, carriers face a 
patchwork of State regulation in 41 States relating to intrastate 
transportation. While some State regulation is minor, other States 
impose very heavy, restrictive regulations and requirements on carriers 
which result in operational inefficiencies, higher costs, and a 
paperwork burden. As officials from the Department of Transportation 
testified at a July 20, 1994 Surface Transportation Subcommittee 
hearing on this issue, it is estimated that State regulation costs 
shippers between $3 billion and $8 billion per year. Obviously, these 
costs are then passed on to consumers.
  State economic deregulation will undoubtedly lead to shifts in the 
trucking industry as carriers must adjust to the new way of doing 
business. Some carriers may find it hard to compete in an unregulated 
market. Nevertheless, it seems apparent that the overall benefits of 
deregulation are worth it. Many carriers and States have contacted the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee warning of dire consequences 
resulting for the preemption of State regulation. I believe it is 
important to note that 9 States and the District of Columbia currently 
do not regulate intrastate prices, routes and services--and some never 
have. My own State of Wisconsin deregulated over 10 years ago and we 
are prospering. Customers, both urban and rural, continue to be well 
served, safety has not been compromised, and trucking rates and 
services are competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this conference report in order to 
reauthorize needed aviation programs and to provide for greater 
efficiencies and competition in intrastate trucking.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] a very valued member of the 
committee and one who has been a leader on this issue of track 
deregulation.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 2739, the 
Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act of 1994 and urge its passage. As 
most of us are aware, this bill contains the necessary provisions that 
once and for all will bring about a level playing field for the motor 
carrier industry. I want to thank our distinguished chairman of the 
Public Works and Transportation Committee, Chairman Mineta and Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Rahall, as well as our 
distinguished ranking Republicans, Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri, for 
working with a whole host of folks to see this to fruition, and, of 
course, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Oberstar and ranking member Bill 
Clinger for their recognition of the intermodal imperatives of the 
competitive era.
  For several years now, our committee has been attempting to address 
the issue of economic deregulation of the trucking industry. Over the 
years, we have heard from small, medium and large trucking companies, 
consumer groups, highway users, union representatives, and State 
regulatory interests--just to name a few. The persistence on the part 
of the Members of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee 
as well as its dedicated staff has, indeed, paid off. I am particularly 
pleased to see that the legislative provisions adopted in this bill are 
almost identical to a bill that I introduced last year, H.R. 2860, the 
Trucking Regulatory Reform Act of 1993. Those of us who have pushed for 
the removal of these costly, antiquated barriers are elated to see them 
finally being removed. The work done by the Congress to reform the 
trucking industry will create jobs and allow for the more efficient 
transportation of goods and services thereby saving millions of dollars 
for the consumer.
  The time has come that we act on correcting the costly inefficiencies 
and waste of the current system of interstate and intrastate trucking 
regulation. We've all heard the horror stories of it being cheaper to 
ship something from Dallas to New Orleans in Louisiana than from Dallas 
to Houston in Texas. Why? Because State regulations have a stranglehold 
on shipping goods inside the state. These regulations, many of which 
originally were enacted to insulate intrastate trucking interests from 
interstate competition. That may have been appropriate at some point in 
the historic development of our transportation industry, but not in 
this modern competitive era.
  If we look across the Atlantic, there is an excellent example of 
deregulation. The European Community has recognized the benefits of 
eliminating its internal barriers; it is imperative that the United 
States follow suit. Strong evidence and study after study have shown 
that the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 has resulted in substantial savings 
for the American consumer. These is no doubt that reduced rates, 
improved services, and greater inventory flexibility and efficiency 
have occurred since 1980. Currently, domestic goods require an average 
of 6 to 10 truck trips before reaching the consumer, whereas imports 
require only 1 or 2. Removing Federal economic barriers would allow for 
market expansion, increase competition and lower prices. The 
inefficiencies of circuitous routing and empty backhauls would be 
eliminated. It is estimated that it would save billions in shipping, 
merchandising, and inventory costs. At the same time, leaving these 
regulations cost American businesses and consumers $5 to 12 billion a 
year.
  The provisions in this bill calling for the economic deregulation of 
the trucking industry are supported by over 200 small, medium, and 
large companies, trucking firms, shippers, brokers, and consumer 
groups. Mr. Speaker, in my mind, it is hard not to recognize the 
overwhelming arguments for deregulation of the trucking industry, and I 
think Congress has to come to this realization. I urge the passage of 
this bill and hope my colleagues will support it. We have a real 
opportunity here to enhance American productivity, competitiveness, 
profitability, and most fundamentally, jobs.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman on his efforts on 
intermodal imperatives on which he has been a leader.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, title III, the research, 
engineering, and development, portion of the legislation before the 
House, represents a strong bipartisan effort to enhance the Agency's 
research programs. This is illustrated by the fact that all the House 
conferees on title III signed the conference report.
  The conference report includes the House mandate that FAA establish a 
long-term research program in cabin air quality.
  Airplane cabin air quality has not shown to be harmful. However, that 
is the heart of the problem. The potential transmission of diseases by 
bacteria and viruses has never been studied scientifically.
  The conference report agreed with the mandates in House passed 
provision, that if there is a problem, it should be addressed before 
major health problems occur.
  On the other hand, if the cabin air quality and disease transmission 
are not problems, then FAA, with assistance from the Centers for 
Disease Control, will have a scientific data base on which to base 
future decisions.
  The conference report also includes the House provision requiring the 
Agency to establish a joint dual-use aviation research and development 
program.
  The program calls for the establishment of a joint FAA-Federal 
agency, including DOD, aviation research and development program, which 
will be conducted by grants to industry.
  The intent is to assist the Defense sector in making the transition 
to civilian sector. This would preserve both the high technology 
involved and the jobs. Moreover, the program would provide the civilian 
aviation sector with expertise developed by the military.
  In order to make advancements in aviation safety and to develop 
future technologies, FAA must have a strong research program.
  This conference report before the House, accomplishes that goal.
  I want to thank Science Committee Chairman Brown, and ranking 
Republican member Walker for their leadership and support of the FAA 
research programs.
  I also want to thank subcommittee Chairman Valentine for his 
willingness to work in a bipartisan manner throughout the development 
of the research programs I discussed earlier.
  Finally, I want to thank Public Works Chairman Mineta and ranking 
member Shuster, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Clinger for their 
cooperation and support.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a truly remarkable 
bipartisan product. It is legislation which both sides have 
participated in. The reason it is so and is here on the floor today 
with virtually no controversy is a tribute to the leadership and 
demeanor of our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], 
who has participated in every aspect of the formulation of the 
legislation, especially in this case with the complexity of the 
trucking deregulation provision added on to aviation.
  His partnership and participation and, of course, his 8 years of 
chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Aviation to which he came in the 
early years of deregulation and masterfully watched over and hovered 
over the crafting of deregulation in such a way that it really 
benefited the entire traveling public.
  I pay special tribute to our chairman for his partnership and his 
leadership.

                              {time}  1410

  Every year, Mr. Speaker, over a billion people world wide travel by 
air. Over half of them travel in the United States. Air travel will 
continue to grow as the world adds the population of New York City 
every year, and over a billion people by the end of the decade. Air 
travel will continue to grow, continue to be a point of fascination and 
of economic stimulus. It is a $6 billion sector of our domestic 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States is the recognized world leader in 
aviation. This legislation will help keep us at the forefront of 
leadership in aviation worldwide.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for his gracious comments a 
little while ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud to be chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation. More importantly, I am very, very 
proud of the members of our committee, who work on a very strong 
bipartisan basis as a regular way of doing business.
  Whether it is the gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Mr. Shuster and Mr. 
Clinger, or the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, or any number of 
our other colleagues on the committee who are Chairs, we do work, both 
staff and Member-wise, on a bipartisan basis. Again, I wish to thank 
everybody for their hard work.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 2739 
contains a provision that originated in the Senate, but which was 
substantially modified by the House conferees, relating to the 
preemption of State economic regulation of intrastate trucking.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, Norm Mineta, has explained this provision in detail and 
the reasons why it is contained in the pending conference report. I 
applaud him and our staff and our ranking minority for their hard work 
on this bill.
  I would note that in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation, and a conferee on this bill, it has been my 
position that if we were to travel down the path of preempting State 
regulations relating to rates or prices, routes and services, we should 
only do so by treating all motor carrier operations equally.
  Further, there are certain aspects of State regulation which clearly 
should not be preempted; primarily relating to safety requirements.
  The Senate passed provision, however, utilized terminologies and 
language which created a great deal of confusion as to its ultimate 
scope and effect, and a level playing field for all.
  The House proposal, adopted by the conferees, provides for a much 
more clear and concise reading.
  As such, under the provision pending before us today, regardless of 
whether you are an air carrier that also happens to own trucks, a motor 
carrier that also happens to own airplanes, or a motor carrier with no 
air component whatsoever, you would receive equal treatment with 
respect to the preemption of State laws pertaining to prices, routes, 
and services.
  In addition, if you are a motor carrier operating in a State which 
regulates items such as uniform cargo liability rules, uniform bills of 
lading, uniform cargo credit rules and antitrust immunity for 
classifications and mileage guides, you could continue to be covered by 
those regulations at your option.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not known as a fan of further motor carrier 
deregulation.
  This preemption provision came to the House floor by means other than 
being approved by my subcommittee and reported by the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  However, subsequent to the Senate action, we found ourselves in a 
position where the majority of the committee members favored taking 
action on this matter. I have also been contacted by a great many 
Members of this body who urged our favorable consideration of the 
Senate provision.
  I respect their views and the majority wishes on this matter.
  In addition, I can certainly understand the competitive concerns 
being advanced by companies like UPS and others that gave rise to this 
legislation in the wake of the 1991 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
decision in Federal Express versus California Public Utilities 
Commission.
  This is a ruling which found that FedEx was essentially an air 
carrier and as such immune to State motor carrier regulations.
  At the same time, I do not think we can ignore the concerns of the 
independent, smaller, and often family-run trucking companies who fear 
the uncertainties this legislation means to their operations.
  And we must not forget the working men and women of the motor carrier 
industry who have already suffered greatly during the deregulatory 
atmosphere of the 1980's. They, too, will be subjected to further 
uncertainties under this bill.
  With the enactment of this legislation, it will be a brave new world 
in which many trucking companies and their employees will seek to 
operate.
  Ultimately, though, the conference committee clearly felt that the 
pending legislation is in the overall public interest: Consumers, 
shippers, motor carriers, and their employees alike will benefit.
  I trust that the judgment of the conferees, and this body, will be 
upheld over the course of the implementation of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, with this said, I am compelled to urge the adoption of 
this conference report on H.R. 2739.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to legislation that 
would deregulate the intrastate trucking industry. It's bad for 
shippers, bad for highway users, and bad for rural America. If you 
liked Frank Lorenzo, you're going to love this bill.
  Deregulation flies in the face of every lesson we've learned over the 
past 16 years. Interstate motor carrier bankruptcies--caused in large 
part by the last round of deregulation--topped 1,600 in 1990, and the 
list is growing. Along the way, thousands of family wage jobs have been 
lost, lives have been ruined, and small businesses have been squeezed 
out of existence.
  I don't think it's appropriate for Federal law to substitute its 
judgment for that of States when it comes to regulating motor carrier 
use. Oregon, for example, is one of eight States that rely on a weight-
distance tax to help finance highway repairs necessitated by tractor 
trailer use. Most everyone in the State agrees that its a fair and 
efficient way to allocate costs. Yet this legislation will make the tax 
extremely difficult to collect and the State will have to find other 
ways to supplement repair costs. It's a safe bet that ordinary citizens 
and commuters will now have to shoulder this extra burden.
  I also don't believe this legislation is neutral toward safety. 
Common sense tells us that a carrier facing bankruptcy will cut costs 
wherever it can, usually starting with equipment maintenance and hours-
of-service limits. After all, safety costs money. Cutthroat competition 
can spread like a cancer. Before you know it, a lowest common 
denominator syndrome will grip the industry and everyone will hedge on 
safety to stay competitive. That's what happened in commercial aviation 
after deregulation. That's exactly what will happen here.
  And finally, I'm not convinced that deregulation will improve 
service. Two-thirds of the population in my State live in rural areas. 
Many of these communities are isolated by mountains or the Pacific 
coastline, and are far from population centers. Without regulation of 
rates and service, most carriers in the State will probably bypass 
these routes altogether.
  This legislation is a disaster waiting to happen. Rushing headstrong 
into the biggest regulatory change in a decade will surely produce 
unintended effects, many of which could be ruinous for States like 
Oregon. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this short-sighted 
proposal.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee, I am pleased to rise in 
support of H.R. 2739, the Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act 
conference report. I am especially pleased that my amendment to combat 
aircraft noise, which was accepted by the House last October, has been 
included in the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, aircraft noise is a serious problem. It is an invisible 
pollutant that causes stress, hearing loss, and impaired health. The 
residents of my district, and the districts of many of our colleagues, 
are experiencing the harm of adverse effects resulting from aircraft 
noise first-hand, having to endure constant, daily, and nightly 
overflights of their homes and their neighborhoods.
  In testimony before the Science Committee's Technology, Environment, 
and Aviation Subcommittee, a number of witnesses have advocated the 
need for greater technological efforts to reduce aircraft noise. In 
addition, the airline industry supports adding more research for 
aircraft noise. Not only will quieter aircraft meet standards within 
the United States and provide our constituents with quieter airspace, 
it will also enhance our international competitiveness. The need to 
develop quieter aircraft technologies will permit U.S. manufactured 
aircraft to meet noise standards in other countries and remain 
competitive.
  To address all of these concerns, in the Aviation Safety and Capacity 
Interim Amendments Act of 1992, Public Law 102-581, Congress directed 
the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to conduct more research on 
aircraft noise abatement for existing aircraft, and for new aircraft. 
The FAA was directed to conduct a research program, jointly with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], to develop new 
technologies for quieter subsonic jet aircraft engines and airframes.
  Yet, in recent years, the FAA has not been able to meet this 
directive as a result of inadequate funding. For example, the 
President's budget for fiscal year 1994 requested only $4.361 million 
for research and development in efforts such as airport noise 
abatement. This figure represented an 8-percent reduction below the 
fiscal year 1993 appropriation level.
  My House-passed amendment reprogrammed the bill's funding to provide 
for adequate funds to perform aircraft noise abatement research and 
development, without creating the need for new additional Federal 
spending. The conferees retained the intent of the amendment by 
agreeing to an authorization of $8.124 million for aircraft noise 
reduction research in fiscal year 1995. The authorization represented 
an increase of $2.695 million from the President's budget request of 
$5.429 million, with the increase in the research offset by 
reprogramming funds from other accounts in the bill.
  The reprogramming would have the same effect for fiscal year 1996. 
The conferees agreed to an authorization of $8.532 million for aircraft 
noise reduction research in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the conference 
report to H.R. 2739. Passage of the conference report is important for 
both our constituents discomforted by aircraft noise and for our 
international competitiveness.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of 
H.R. 2739, the FAA Airport Improvement Program Authorization Act of 
1994, and I would like to commend my colleagues in both the House and 
the Senate for their cooperative approach in bringing this conference 
report to the floor today. I am always happy to have the opportunity to 
work alongside my good friend and colleague from California, Mr. 
Mineta, and it brings me particular satisfaction when it involves 
legislation authorizing funding for aviation programs which, as we all 
know, are a significant contributor on the U.S. economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees are reauthorizing the FAA research and 
development programs for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. These programs 
form the base for the improvements that are made by the FAA in the 
national airspace system to increase system capacity, reduce the number 
and length of delays, and automate the outdated hardware and software 
used by our air traffic control system. In this regard, H.R. 2739 
authorizes a relatively modest amount of funds for research and 
development at the FAA, and it is arguable that this funding should be 
significantly higher given the large number of technological and 
operational issues these programs are meant to address.
  Overall, I believe aviation research and development as conducted by 
FAA and other agencies under the jurisdiction of the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee, such as NASA, are critical to the 
technological advances which must be made in order to increase safety, 
capacity, and security of the U.S. airspace. But I also believe 
Congress at some point needs to rationalize FAA, NASA, and perhaps 
Defense Department R&D programs across the breadth and depth of the 
Government and determine a better method of investing the Federal 
dollar in this crucial area. Too often, important areas of research can 
be neglected or given low priority in the scramble to keep programs on 
schedule, and someone eventually pays in the long run--usually the 
Government through more funding, but unfortunately, occasionally the 
flying public through accidents and delays.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the important contributions made by 
aviation to our Nation's preeminence, and to support the conference 
report to H.R. 2739. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2739, 
the Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act of 1993. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  When the House passed this legislation last October, the bill's title 
was the Aviation Infrastructure Investment Act. Today, the conference 
report should be more aptly titled, the Aviation Infrastructure and 
Surface Transportation Competitiveness Act of 1994. Like ISTEA, this 
bill is truly an intermodal transportation bill.
  Most importantly, this legislation will continue our strong Federal 
commitment to fund the development and improve the capacity of our 
Nation's aviation system. And, as Secretary Pena stated in his letter 
of August 1 to me and the other House conferees, quick enactment of 
this bill will allow the FAA to make the needed apportionments of funds 
in time to take advantage of the remaining construction season. Our 
airports deserve nothing less and I think considerable credit goes to 
our respective chairmen and the House and Senate staffs who whittled 
the list of unresolved issues for the conferees to resolve to less than 
a dozen.

  Equally important, the Senate added language to provide intermodal, 
all-cargo carriers relief from intrastate rate, route, and service 
regulation.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have a long track record on this 
issue. First, as a member of the Tennessee Public Service Commission, I 
learned, first-hand, how the trucking business operates. Last Congress, 
I introduced H.R. 3221, the Intermodal Carriers Competitiveness Act, 
which provided the legislative underpinnings for the trucking 
deregulation provision now contained in H.R. 2739. Both my bill and 
H.R. 2739 accomplish the same important goal--and that is to allow the 
small package express industry to compete--fair and square--with each 
other and their foreign competitors.
  Since our hearings before the Public Works and Transportation 
Subcommittee on surface transportation last June, I have come to the 
conclusion that the Senate trucking deregulation provision was a good 
starting point, but that we now need to go further in leveling the 
playing field for trucking firms of all sizes. Under the Senate's 
original language, large- and medium-sized trucking firms, as well as 
the small package express industry, would be deregulated at the State 
level. However, since many small trucking firms do not utilize an air 
carrier 15,000 times a year, they would remain regulated under the 
Senate provision. I now believe that all economic regulation should be 
ended.
  Thus, when the conferees met last week, I supported the trucking 
deregulation language offered by the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation because it will treat all truckers alike when it comes 
to State regulation or prices, routes, and services.
  This provision will not only benefit new business startups but also 
save shippers and consumers between $4.5 and $8 billion per year in 
transportation costs.
  Mr. Speaker, This is a good transportation bill. And, as a member of 
the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, I am proud to 
join my chairman in bringing this legislation to the House floor. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage.
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of H.R. 2739, 
the FAA Airport Improvement Program Authorization Act of 1994, and in 
particular, the research and development provisions it contains.
  The conferees are reauthorizing the FAA research and development 
programs at a very unsettling time within the Agency. The FAA is 
confronted with an unprecedented technological leap in an enormous 
number of areas, including global positioning systems, advanced 
automation systems, and the en route and oceanic air traffic control 
systems. The FAA is betting billions of taxpayer dollars that these 
systems will work and work well. Too often recently, FAA has been 
losing these bets, thereby aggravating the delays and inefficiencies 
that are faced every day by the flying public. This explosion of 
technology is all the more painful because in many cases, the 
technology has been under development for years; a little foresight on 
the part of the FAA to better fund its R&D programs to explore these 
technologies could have saved a lot of the pain and trouble which is 
presently dogging the FAA.
  The FAA's current R&D programs are the cornerstone of many of the 
improvements which will be made in the next two decades. Therefore, we 
want the FFA to think strategically so that the technological base will 
be available and proven when these changes begin to take place. To 
encourage the strengthening of these programs, the conferees have fully 
funded the administration's FAA R&D request for fiscal year 1995 and 
authorized a 5-percent increase for fiscal year 1996. This increase is 
consistent with the recommendations made by the Commission chaired by 
Norman Augustine which, after an independent review of the FAA's R&D 
programs, recommended that these programs receive significant increased 
in funding to achieve the objectives laid out for them.
  The funding for these programs already exists in the airport and 
airways trust fund. Full funding of this authorization will require 
only a fraction of the current trust fund balance of over $4 billion. 
The FAA research and development program is a very modest investment 
which can potentially offer enormous savings and huge returns in the 
future.
  I thank the conferees for their cooperation in achieving this 
significant legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, there being no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on 
the bill, H.R. 2739.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed 
to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________