[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.
____________________