[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION--CONFERENCE REPORT ACT OF
1994
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on (H.R. 2739) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to 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, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of
the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of August 3, 1994.)
Mr. FORD. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2739, the
Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill; that the conference
report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and any statements thereon appear in the Record at the appropriate
place as though read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me make a comment about the conference
report we have just approved. It has been a laborious process leading
up to the passage of the bill. I remember when we had this bill in the
Chamber we had three germane amendments, we had seven amendments on
Whitewater, one on Korea, and one on EEOC. And so it took about 9 days
to get the bill out of the Senate and to conference. I am very pleased
tonight that this conference report has been approved.
Let me compliment my chairman, Senator Hollings. He supports his
subcommittee chairmen without any reservation. When he is needed, he
comes and helps and allows us to proceed. He worked with the conference
committee diligently and is one of the main reasons we were able to
complete this conference in such a timely manner.
I also want to compliment Senator Danforth, the ranking member of the
Commerce Committee. He had such strong interest in this bill, and he
stayed with us in the conference committee. I am grateful to him for
his interest in the bill and his support.
Mr. President, let me also thank two of my staff members, Sam
Whitehorn and Martha Moloney for their long hours and diligent work in
making this moment possible; and my ranking member, Senator Pressler,
and to the minority staff who have worked in a bipartisan way to see
that this bill has come to fruition now, and to be sent to the
President for his signature.
Today, before my colleagues is the conference report to H.R. 2739,
the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994. As my colleagues know,
earlier this year we spent 8 days trying to pass a bill to provide
airports with Federal funds. Most of those days were spent on issues
wholly unrelated to the FAA or to airports. We had amendments on
Whitewater, North Korea, and EEOC, all of which consumed enormous
amounts of time.
I can now report to my colleagues that we have a final agreement with
our House colleagues on funding for the FAA for the next 3 years. Let
me explain briefly what the bill before you does. The bill:
Provides authorization for the airport improvement program,
facilities and equipment, operations and research of the FAA for 3
years;
Sets out a process to resolve airport-airline fee disputes on an
expedited basis and guards against illegal revenue diversion;
Does not, and I repeat, does not, require that fees in dispute be
placed in an escrow account. This is something that was discussed at
great length when the bill was passed on the Senate floor this past
June;
Preempts State regulation of intermodal air cargo carriers and other
companies engaged in the transportation of cargo; and,
Establishes a 5 year term for the Administrator of the FAA.
As my colleagues are well aware, this is an important funding bill.
Because of its importance, we have spent many days on the Senate floor
debating its merits, and spent many days discussing with the aviation
community and financial community its true impacts. I can assure my
colleagues that this bill will, and I repeat, will, provide funds for
airports.
I also want to touch on a few provisions. First, the bill includes a
5 year term for the administrator of the FAA. The position of
leadership at the FAA is a critical one. All too often the FAA
Administrator, though able, stays but a short time. The average tenure
is about 18 months, which is not long enough to really get to know the
agency, make decisions, and see them carried out. Earlier this year, we
got into a great debate on whether or not to establish an air traffic
control corporation, something which has since been laid to rest.
However, all concerned recognize the need to reform the FAA, and the 5
year term will help the FAA with a continuity of leadership and
stability.
The airline-airport fee dispute process sets out specific time
frames, ensures that airlines can recoup funds if a fee is determined
to be unreasonable, and specifies when a civil penalty can be imposed.
The conferees wanted to ensure that airport sponsors be able to
mitigate any penalty, and language in the report specifically addresses
this matter. In addition, and most important, airports that are now
permitted to divert funds legally, are not affected by this
legislation. Rights held before by a limited number of airports
continue. This is a matter that was raised by a number of colleagues,
from Massachusetts to California, and I want to assure them that the
grandfathered airports are unaffected.
With respect to section 211, as passed by the Senate, the House
conferees sought to modify the Senate provision to ensure that
regulatory burdens for all those in the cargo industry are limited. The
Senate conferees receded to the House on this matter.
I want to thank my Senate conferees, and colleagues for all of their
assistance and suggestions. As many of you know, we had to conference
this bill with six committees. Without the assistance of many of you in
a timely manner, this bill would not be before you today.
I want to thank personally our House colleagues, Chairman Mineta,
Congressman Oberstar, the aviation subcommittee chairman, Congressman
Rahall, the surface transportation subcommittee chairman, as well as
the ranking members of those committees, Congressman Shuster, Clinger,
and Petri, respectively, for all of their fine work. I must recognize
as well the leadership of the House Science and Technology, Foreign
Affairs, Ways and Means, and Banking committees for all of their
cooperation and efforts.
Finally, I want to recognize the staff of the House, who worked long
and hard to resolve all of the issues and put the report to bed late
Friday night, for senior staff to the excellent work of the staff
assistants. I know the House aviation staff has met for weeks with my
staff and I want to extend my thanks to Dave Hymsfeld, Dave Traynham,
Mary Walsh, Caroline Gabel, Dave Schaeffer, Donna McLean, and Ed
Fedderman as well as Mary Beth Gaiarin, Gretchen Biery, and Linda
Burdett.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Aviation
Subcommittee, I am very pleased the Senate is about to pass the
conference report to H.R. 2739, the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994. This is a very important bill, providing a 3
year authorization for the FAA's Airport Improvement [AIP]. Prompt
enactment of this measure is critical to our Nation's airports.
While almost $1.7 billion has been appropriated for AIP for fiscal
year 1994, about one-half of this appropriation has not been available
to local communities in South Dakota and other States in dire need of
AIP funding. This is because the AIP program has not been fully
authorized since it expired in 1993.
We were able to pass a temporary authorization bill in May, releasing
about $800 million for AIP grants. However, this provided only
temporary relief following an 8-month gap in AIP. No AIP grants have
been made available since June 30 of this year. This is very troubling
because the construction seasons in many of our States soon will be
over.
In addition to reauthorizing AIP for 1994 through 1996, the
conference agreement includes several provisions that merit attention:
Section 207, the Air Service Termination Notice. This section
requires air carriers to provide 45 days advance notification prior to
terminating air service at non-hub airports. I am very pleased the
conference members were able to reach an agreement on this section.
Cities in South Dakota and other rural areas struggle continually to
maintain jet service. I would have preferred the conferees to have
retained the provision as passed by the Senate--requiring a 60 day
advance notice. However, I hope our compromise will be an important
step in helping smaller communities in their struggle to maintain
adequate air service.
Section 206, Slots for Air Carriers at Airports. This section of the
bill addresses the issue of takeoff and landing rights at high density
airports, commonly know as slots. These slots are necessary for
operations at four of our Nation's busiest airports, Chicago O'Hare,
New York LaGuardia, New York Kennedy, and Washington National.
I am particularly pleased the conference agreement provides that the
Secretary of Transportation shall insure that air carriers wishing to
provide essential air service [EAS] at high density airports will be
granted the necessary operational authority to do so. A preference is
expressed in the conference agreement for the use of what are known as
exemptions. These exemptions would be used by EAS carriers to provide
service unless the Secretary determines that such an exemption would
significantly increase operational delays.
In the event that the Secretary cannot use an exemption to ensure EAS
service, the Secretary shall take other necessary actions to ensure
access, including the withdrawal of slots from incumbent carriers. This
is a major step forward for communities in States like South Dakota
that are dependent on EAS subsidies and want access to high density
airports.
Section 601, the Preemption of Intrastate Transportation of Property.
This is one provision in the Senate-passed bill that caused me concern.
It would have provided for the preemption of State Law for certain
intermodal all-cargo carriers engaged in intrastate transportation. My
concern was for those transportation companies not covered by the
Senate provision.
I believe the conferees have reached a more reasoned approach.
Section 601 makes it clear that the preemption would apply to all firms
operating in intrastate transportation, so that smaller companies would
be put on a level playing field. In addition, to the extent that
trucking companies want to avail themselves of certain State economic
regulations, they can choose to be covered by such. The agreement also
emphasizes that States maintain their authority to regulate certain
essential areas, such as safety and insurance regulations. Those
necessary aspects of State regulatory authority are clearly preserved.
Mr. President, these are just a few of the provisions of the bill I
consider to be important. It is a sound agreement. It authorizes
funding for the capital needs of our Nation's commercial airports and
general aviation facilities. I urge adoption of the conference report.
Mr. President, at this time I would like to take the opportunity to
congratulate the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford,
for his leadership on this bill. Further, I want to commend the other
Senate conferees who helped us to move this bill through the
legislative process: the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator
Hollings, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Danforth, and
Senator Exon.
In addition, I want to thank the staff members for all of their hard
work on this time consuming bill. First, I would like to thank Alan
Maness and Betsy Iverson from the Senate Commerce Committee for their
assistance. I also want to extend my appreciation to Martha Moloney
from Senator Ford's staff, Sam Whitehorn from the Senate Commerce
Committee, Chris McLean from Senator Exon's staff and Ann Begeman of my
staff.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am pleased to speak in support of the conference
report on H.R. 2739. This airport improvement bill has had a long road
to final passage. Last November the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported S. 1491, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act
of 1993. But it was not until last Friday night, at around 11 p.m.,
that the House and Senate conferees reached a final agreement, and the
conference report was completed. The House of Representatives passed
the conference report on Monday, August 8, 1994, enabling the Senate to
consider the matter expeditiously.
As my colleagues all know well, this bill provides funds for all of
our Nation's airports. Without this bill, no airport can receive
Federal funds to meet its safety and capacity needs.
I want to discuss a number of issues addressed in the bill, and some
that were not included, as a result of the conference. First, the bill
sets out a 3-year authorization of appropriations for the entire
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], including airport improvement,
operations, facilities, and research. Second, the bill provides a
procedure for airports and airlines to settle disputes over airport
rates and charges. The procedure differs from that proposed earlier
this year by the Department of Transportation, primarily by setting out
an expedited decisionmaking process. Representatives of airlines,
airports, the bond community, and many other affected interests have
spent a great deal of time going through each of the issues, and have
reached a compromise. It is a fair compromise, and one supported by all
sides.
Third, the bill as it passed the Senate addressed a problem of
fairness in the air cargo industry. One carrier, Federal Express, as a
result of a decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is treated
as an air carrier right now, and thus is exempt from State regulation.
UPS, a carrier in the exact same business, is treated like a trucking
company and is subject to State regulation. As my colleagues know, I
have many concerns with airline deregulation, but leveling the playing
field for these two giants is different. To address this inequity, the
Senate-passed version of the bill included a provision that preempted
State economic regulation of air carriers with trucks like Federal
Express, motor carriers with aircraft like UPS, indirect air carriers,
and a number of other large carriers that make use of air cargo
services.
After Senate passage, the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee held hearings on this preemption provision, and the hearing
testimony indicated that exempting a number of large carriers from
State regulation could put nonexempted carriers at a competitive
disadvantage. In light of this desire for fairness, the conference
committee expanded the provision to preempt regulation of all
intermodal and motor carriers engaged in the transportation of cargo.
However, like others of my colleagues, I am concerned that new
competition resulting from this action may adversely affect many small
companies. I will be monitoring carefully the impact of this provision
on those small companies.
Finally, the House version of the bill sought to permit collective
bargaining at the Washington area airports. Instead, the conferees
decided to continue to review the issue through a study to look at how
best to proceed with this issue as a result of concerns raised during
the conference.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this conference report.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I am pleased we are moving forward on
legislation that is vital not only to our aviation system, but our
economy as a whole. The short-term airport reauthorization bill that
was enacted on May 26 provided $800 million in Airport Improvement
Program [AIP] funding. That authorization expired on June 30. Since
that time no Federal money has gone to our Nation's airports. The
conference report would bring the total authorization for fiscal year
1994 to $2.105 billion. It also would authorize $2.161 billion for
fiscal year 1995 and $2.214 billion for fiscal year 1996.
Our Nation's aviation system needs expanded airport capacity.
According to the FAA, there are currently 23 airports where flights are
delayed by 20,000 hours or more annually. According to the FAA, this
costs the airlines, on average, $32 million in delay costs at each
airport. At the same time, passenger enplanements at the top 100
airports are predicted to increase from 452 million in 1991 to 861
million in 2005. This is a 90-percent increase. If nothing is done to
increase system capacity, FAA projects that within 10 years 33 airports
will experience more than 20,000 hours in annual delays. To meet these
needs, the airports estimate that their capital development
requirements will be $10 billion each year for the next 5 years. The
current funding sources ($1.45 billion to $1.5 billion in AIP
appropriations for fiscal year 1995, $3.5 billion in airport bonds, and
$800 million in passenger facility charges) fall far short of the $10
billion annual need. FAA has $8 billion in unfunded pending grant
requests.
A good example of the importance of AIP is Lambert Airport in St.
Louis. Lambert currently experiences 50,000 hours of delays each year.
Lambert projects that these delays will exceed 175,000 hours a year by
2010 unless the airport is expanded. These delays currently cost the
airlines $60 million a year and, without an expansion, these costs will
grow to $200 million by 2010. In the next 2 years, Lambert is expected
to seek an AIP funding commitment of $300 million over 10 years.
Without these funds, Lambert officials will not be able to piece
together the financing plan for the projected $1.8 billion expansion.
Mr. President, another issue on which the conferees agreed was the
question of the economic regulation of intrastate property movements by
air carriers and motor carriers. The conference report recognizes that
intrastate economic regulation of freight transportation no longer
makes sense in a global economy with rapidly evolving transportation
markets and practices such as just in time inventory control.
Importantly, this legislation specifically recognizes the authority of
States to regulate safety:
Impose highway route controls or limitations based on the
size or weight of the motor vehicle or the hazardous nature
of the cargo, or the authority of a State to regulate motor
carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial
responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-
insurance authorization.
Mr. President, reauthorizing AIP is important. It also is important
that this bill covers three aspects of the ongoing dispute between the
airlines and the airports over the fees charged airlines. Examples of
the types of fees that have created controversy include landing fees,
as well as rental charges for gate space and baggage handling areas.
The Secretary of Transportation would have 90 days to develop
procedures and policies for reviewing airline-airport fee disputes. The
procedures would have to include the following elements: First, a total
review process period of 120 days; second, upon an airline's complaint,
the Secretary would have to decide within 30 days whether to dismiss it
or set it for hearing before an administrative Law Judge [ALJ]; third,
within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, the ALJ would have to
decide whether the fee was reasonable; fourth, the Secretary would have
30 days to review the ALJ's decision; and fifth, the Department's
determination would be reviewable by a court of appeals under a
substantial evidence standard of review.
Second, the bill contains a provision that would prevent an airport
from locking out an airline over a fee dispute, provided the airline
paid the disputed amount during DOT review. The airport would have to
provide some assurance of repayment to an airline or airlines who
prevail in the DOT rate review process. This assurance could take the
form of a surety bond, letter of credit or other credit facility.
Finally, the conference report deals with the issue of diverting
airport revenue to non-airport purposes. Within 90 days of enactment of
this legislation, the Secretary of Transportation would have to issue
new policies and procedures designed to strengthen the prohibition on
diversion. These new policies would provide airports clear guidelines
on impermissible diversion.
The Conference Report also includes a provision regarding revenue
diversion that is legally permitted. Under this provision the Secretary
must first make a finding that an airport which is legally permitted to
divert is taking, in inflation adjusted terms, more off the airport
than it did in the airport's first fiscal year ending after enactment.
If this finding is made the increase in diversion will be a factor
militating against distribution of discretionary funds to the airport.
The conference report limited the application of this provision to
those airports that are increasing the amounts they are diverting
because the conferees recognized that these legal diversions represent
long standing practices. Moreover, applying pressure to airports is
unlikely to change the approach of fiscally strapped city governments.
Lambert Field in St. Louis is one of the so-called grandfathered
airports that has legally diverted a small percentage of airport
revenues for many years. Given its fiscal problems, St. Louis will not
change this practice regardless of changes we make in AIP funding
criteria. Moreover, in determining how to weigh the factor of legal
diversion it is important for the Secretary to consider the magnitude
of the diversion. the Statement of Managers addresses this issue by
stating, ``[T]he Secretary shall consider the amount being diverted by
the airport operator compared to the amount being sought in
discretionary grants in reviewing the grant application.'' Thus, the
Secretary must consider the size of the diversion amount in comparison
with the discretionary grant being sought.
Mr. President, I would like to close by thanking Senators Hollings,
Ford, and Pressler for the work they have done to bring this important
legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.
grandfathered airports
Mr. KERRY. Will the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee answer a
few questions concerning the conference report to H.R. 2739?
Mr. FORD. I would be delighted to.
Mr. KERRY. I know that the chairman spent a great deal of time
sorting through airport revenue diversion issues, and the conferees
discussed the issue at length as well. Is the chairman's understanding
that those airports that are permitted to divert revenues legally, are
unaffected by the bill?
Mr. FORD. That is correct. There is nothing in the bill that affects
Massport's status. In fact, the conferees discussed this same problem
with respect to St. Louis, which is in a similar situation to Massport.
The conferees agreed to alter slightly the originally House provision
language concerning legal revenue diversion as a factor in awarding
discretionary grants. All of the conferees agreed that we were not
taking away rights already granted in existing law.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that explanation, as well as the Senator's
efforts to make sure all of the airports are adequately funded.
Mr. BRYAN. I commend the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee for
his outstanding work to resolve numerous contentious issues on this
legislation which provides important funding for our Nation's airports.
I would like to ask the chairman about one of the provisions in the
legislation dealing with the ability of air carriers to provide gaming
applications on in-flight interactive video systems. As the chairman
knows, newly designed interactive video systems are being installed on
foreign and domestic aircraft worldwide providing passengers a wide
variety of in-flight entertainment options.
Last year, we learned that foreign carriers had announced plans to
provide games of chance on these entertainment systems. Because the
market for international passengers is intensely competitive, numerous
U.S. carriers likewise considered providing similar games.
However, under an archaic law called the Johnson Act, U.S. air
carriers--but not foreign carriers--are prohibited from providing
gaming on their flights. The prohibition apparently applies to U.S.
carriers even when the flight is in international waters and even if
the flight is not taking off from or landing in the United States.
A study has shown that U.S. flag carriers could lose hundreds of
millions of dollars each year because--on those long international
flights--some passengers may decide to fly on foreign-flag carriers
rather than U.S. carriers in order to enjoy these additional
entertainment options.
To level the competitive playing field, U.S. carriers asked Congress
last year to permit them to provide comparable gaming applications on
in-flight video systems when their flights were over international
waters. Earlier, Congress permitted U.S. cruise ships to provide gaming
to compete with foreign cruise ships which likewise had a competitive
advantage due to the operation of the Johnson Act.
Congress recognized the potential adverse competitive implications
for U.S. air carriers, but there were some concerns raised about the
logistical operation of these gaming devices and whether their use
would pose any threat to the safety of the aircraft or other
passengers.
I fully agree with those who have raised those concerns that these
issues should be addressed before we permit these additional in-flight
options. As a result, I agreed to the provisions in the conference
report which provides for the Federal Aviation Administration to study
the safety implications of the application of gaming devices on in-
flight interactive video systems. The safety study is very important. I
believe the FAA should consider whether there is any reason that games
of chance electronically will have any different effect on the
operation of the aircraft than other electronic games such as Nintendo.
The FAA should also consider whether allowing games of chances will
affect passenger behavior more dramatically than the serving of alcohol
on flights, or the prohibition on smoking. Frankly, I doubt they will.
Finally, if the FAA determines that there are any valid safety issues,
I urge them to include in its report to Congress how these issues could
be addressed through the regulatory process.
The conference report provision attempts to level the competitive
playing field by prohibiting foreign air carriers from providing gaming
applications, and provides that the Department of Transportation should
study the competitive implications if foreign carriers are able to
provide gaming while U.S. carriers are not.
I also fear that the prohibition on foreign carriers may not be
enforceable and that U.S. carriers will remain at a competitive
disadvantage. For example, if the foreign carrier takes out the
computer chip--which provides the gaming function--before it reaches
U.S. airspace, I am uncertain how the U.S. could apply U.S. law against
the carrier. In addition, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. could
enforce--or intends to try to enforce--such a provision when the flight
does not even go to or from the United States. The DOT should consider
the ability to enforce this law as part of its study.
Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Kentucky will join me in
urging the DOT and FAA to conduct these studies and report back to
Congress expeditiously, and in no event later than the time frames in
the legislation. I expect that the reports are likely to demonstrate
that the foreign air carriers will remain at a competitive advantage,
and any safety concerns can be addressed through the regulatory
process. In any event, once we have the reports, we will be a better
position to consider this issue at the beginning of next Congress.
Mr. FORD. I thank my friend from Nevada for his comments. I join him
in urging the DOT and FAA to complete the studies required in the
legislation in a timely fashion. Once we have these studies, we will
better be able to determine the competitive implications for U.S.
carriers, and whether any valid safety concerns can be addressed
through the regulatory process.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] suggests
the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________