[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1628-E1629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 17, 1996

  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Airport 
Privatization Pilot Program, which was included as part of H.R. 3539, 
the FAA Authorization Act of 1996.

[[Page E1629]]

  I would first like to thank our Chairman, Mr. Shuster, and the 
Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Jimmy Duncan, for their foresight and 
strong leadership on the issue of airport privatization. Because of 
Chairman Duncan's hard work, the legislation which we are considering 
today includes an airport privatization pilot program which provides 
for a limited test of airport privatization.
  I believe that local and State governments should have the discretion 
to consider airport privatization. I also understand, however, that 
some airport users are skeptical about the private ownership of 
airports. This airport privatization pilot program has been carefully 
crafted to address these concerns by permitting the privatization--by 
sale or long-term lease--of up to six airports, while explicitly 
protecting the interests of the airport users and the Federal 
Government at each privatized facility. The pilot program protects the 
airlines and general aviation from undue price increases at a 
privatized airport by capping rates and charges at the rate of 
inflation. It explicitly prohibits discriminatory access policies, 
safeguarding general aviation users. And, I must emphasize, it does not 
create any new opportunities for airport revenue diversion.
  Cities and counties should have the discretion to consider airport 
privatization as a means to fund needed capital improvements and 
promote economic development. It is clear that federal airport 
development resources will be limited. And, many cities need to create 
new capacity at their existing airports to meet surging demand for air 
services, creating pressure on cities and counties to consider 
alternative sources of capital.
  At the same time, there are well-capitalized, experienced American 
companies looking for opportunities to invest in domestic airport 
facilities. But, as is the case far too often, the Federal Government 
is standing in the way. Cities and counties do not have the discretion, 
because of outdated Federal policies, to even consider private sector 
solutions to fund otherwise unaffordable airport capital improvements 
and bring market-driven management efficiencies to their facilities.
  State and local governments should have the discretion to consider 
airport privatization as a means for promoting economic development. 
First, airport privatization can help attract new businesses to a 
community. The quality of an area's airport is a key factor for 
companies looking to relocate or build new facilities. Airport 
privatization can be a tool for State and local governments to make 
capital and operating improvements at an airport without further 
burdening the taxpayers.
  Second, airport privatization can increase property, sales, and 
income tax revenues. The sale of an airport facility adds a valuable 
piece of realty to the local property tax base. And, the new jobs and 
retail sales created at a privately-operated airport will increase 
income and sales tax receipts.
  Third, cities and counties may recover their capital and operating 
investments in an airport facility from the proceeds of an airport sale 
or long-term lease transaction.
  For all of these reasons, I believe that the airport privatization 
pilot program will provide for a meaningful test of airport 
privatization, permitting a limited number of State and local 
governments the discretion to employ innovative management solutions to 
help meet their infrastructure needs. Again, I commend Chairmen Shuster 
and Duncan for their hard work on this measure.