[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11452-H11466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3539, FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 540

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3539) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material)
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 540 provides for the consideration of 
the conference report for H.R. 3539, Federal Aviation Reauthorization. 
House Resolution 540 is a typical House rule for a conference report. 
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration, and the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  The House understands the importance of the timely consideration of 
this bill, and the Rules Committee favorably approved this rule 
yesterday. It is imperative that this bill be enacted into law soon so 
that airport improvement funds can be released across the country by 
the end of the month. We are close to completing the work of the 104th 
Congress, and the House cannot delay sending the President this 
legislation for his signature; therefore, I urge adoption of this rule 
so that we can get on with debate and passage of this essential 
legislation.
  As a conferee on the section of this legislation under the 
jurisdiction of the Rules Committee, I want to commend Chairman Bud 
Shuster, and Bill Clinger, and John Duncan for their hard work in 
resolving the differences that remained between the House and the 
Senate legislation. The conferees had to balance an assortment of 
concerns, and the resulting product closely resembles the FAA 
reauthorization bill that passed the House.
  The conference report authorizes the Federal Aviation 
Administration's major program for 2 years and provides about $19 
billion dollars for FAA operations, airport grants, and FAA facilities, 
equipment, and research. This legislation reforms the FAA, authorizes 
the necessary funding to increase aviation safety and security, and 
assures expanded aircraft inspection. These are provisions that are 
vital to provide the effective services and protection that the 
American public deserves.
  I also want to comment on a number of notable items in the bill. 
First, the conference report authorizes an airport privatization pilot 
program that will allow five airports to be either sold or to enter 
into long term leases. The pilot program gives us an opportunity to 
observe the ability of the private sector to introduce the necessary 
capital and efficiencies that may help to advance our current airport 
system into the 21st century.
  Another significant provision in the conference report is a 
requirement that the National Transportation Safety Board serve as the 
responsible contact following an accident. Under these requirements, 
the NTSB would designate an independent, non-profit entity to

[[Page H11453]]

provide emotional care and support for the families of any passenger 
involved in an accident. It is crucial that we provide family members 
with information about their loved ones, and this provision helps 
provide the care that is needed under the most horrible of 
circumstances.
  Finally, this Nation has seen a disturbing rise in the practice of 
lawyers immediately harassing the grieving families of victims 
following an accident. I am particularly pleased this bill protects 
passengers and family members by prohibiting unsolicited contacts from 
lawyers until 30 days after an accident. It is a compassionate 
provision that deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed with the debate and consideration of a conference report that 
contains these meaningful FAA reforms, vital transportation resources 
and significant safety and security protections for American families 
across the nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder], for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Mr. Speaker, most of the things that this bill does are excellent.
  It authorizes $10.4 billion for the next 2 fiscal years for our 
Federal Aviation Administration. These are people in charge of our air 
traffic control, air routes and airline safety.
  It also authorizes $4.6 billion in airport grants.
  It authorizes funding for airline safety and inspection programs 
which will improve the safety of air travel in the United States.
  It improves the notification process for families of airline accident 
victims to end confusion and to speed the transfer of information 
during that very, very difficult time.
  And if that were all that this bill would do, Mr. Speaker, I would 
happily support it, and so would many of my colleagues. But that is not 
all that is in this bill.
  This bill contains a direct attack on working Americans. This bill 
contains a provision that was not part of either the House or Senate 
bill. This provision will resurrect the term ``express carrier'' solely 
on behalf of the Federal Express Co. No other company is categorized as 
an express carrier.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the term ``express carrier'' was dropped with 
the passage of the ICC Termination Act in 1995, but this bill pulls 
that term out of the trash heap, and in doing so will effectively 
prohibit the employees of Federal Express from unionizing.
  The supporters of this provision, this blatant attack on American 
workers, call it a technical correction. The person testifying before 
the committee said it was inadvertently left out of the House bill. It 
was inadvertently left out of the Senate bill. But somehow it showed up 
in the conference committee report.
  I would argue that for the 130,000 employees of Federal Express this 
change is hardly a correction, it is more like a misdirection.
  If Federal Express employees cannot unionize locally, Mr. Speaker, 
they cannot unionize at all, and the powerful people at the top of 
Federal Express know it.
  So, I urge my colleagues to stand up for those 130,000 employees of 
this company and defeat the rule and defeat the bill. Despite all of 
the progress this bill will make towards improving air travel and 
airline safety, it should be defeated because of that one provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3539 is a good bipartisan bill except for one 
horrible extraneous provision which was beyond the scope of the 
conference. We should be passing a conference report today in order to 
fund airport improvement program grants, reform the FAA, address the 
security needs of our aviation system, restructure the Washington 
Airport Authority, and deal with the ways that pilot records are 
shared, accident victim families are treated, and children are allowed 
to fly. But I cannot ask my colleagues to vote for this bill because 
the Republican leadership has chosen to sabotage this important 
legislation with a big favor for the Federal Express Corp.
  In case my colleagues have not heard, the history of this 
controversial so-called Fed Ex provision is as follows:
  There has never been a hearing on it, not in a subcommittee in the 
House, not in a full committee of the House, not in a subcommittee of 
the Senate, not in a full committee of the Senate. They attempted to 
attach this provision to the fiscal year 1996 omnibus appropriations 
bill and failed. They tried to attach it to the NTSB reauthorization 
bill and failed.

                              {time}  1215

  They tried to attach it to the Railroad Unemployment Act amendments 
and failed. They attempted to attach it to the amendments to the DOT 
appropriations and failed. I understand that they even tried to attach 
it to the CR that we will be voting upon today, tomorrow, Sunday, 
Monday, Tuesday, whenever it comes to pass. Now they have stuck it on 
this very important aviation bill, threatening everything in it.
  Defeating the rule will enable us to have this terrible special 
interest provision removed so that the product of 2 years of effort of 
the Aviation Subcommittee will not be sacrificed to Federal Express.
  Mr. Speaker, I hate to see the progress that we have made in 
improving virtually every aspect of aviation for the American people 
thrown away to cater to one powerful corporation. We have had splendid, 
outstanding cooperation on all aviation matters here in the House, 
principally because of the nature of the chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan]. He and I have 
worked splendidly together throughout the entire process of this bill 
and many other bills.
  The ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the 
committee, have worked in tremendous cooperation to improve the 
aviation industry in this country, with all the legislation that is 
included in this bill.
  Now, unfortunately, at the last moment, when everything else was done 
in conference, when we had worked everything else out between the House 
and Senate, at the 11th hour, an amendment is brought forward to aid 
and assist one giant corporation against the American middle class, a 
provision for Federal Express.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to one and all in this House, this is an 
opportunity for Members to stand up and do something for American 
middle class people, and vote against this rule.
  For the arguments that people will put forth that we do not want to 
defeat this very important piece of legislation because so many things 
will be adversely impacted in the aviation industry, I simply say to 
them, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], has stated in several 
publications if the rule is defeated, if the bill is defeated, they 
will simply put it on the continuing resolution, or they will bring it 
back without this provision and pass a clean aviation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the Members, vote against this terrible rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The issue which my 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois, brings up will, of course, be 
debated after this rule has passed, and we can address it at that 
point. Our view is that it is simply a technical correction that needs 
to be made.
  But beyond that, let me emphasize that the provision was offered by 
the Senate. Indeed, it was offered by Senator Hollings, a Democrat. The 
Senate conferees unanimously, Republican and Democrat alike, including 
Senator Wendell Ford, supported this provision. So this is certainly 
not simply

[[Page H11454]]

something, it is not something that we have proposed, it is something 
that the Senate has proposed. It is something that we accept, because 
we think it is a technical correction.
  But, indeed, that can be debated, and I am sure it will be debated at 
length when we get into the conference report itself. I simply rise and 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so we can get to the 
debate, to the substance of the conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have heard certain people in the Republican party do not want this 
bill. I wanted to ask my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], who just sat down, if he really wants this proviso in 
the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. Absolutely.
  It is outrageous, it is outrageous that we even have to deal with 
this issue this way, because it is nothing more than a technical 
correction. Indeed, if we were the ones who were involved in putting 
something in here which inadvertently hurt labor, we would be down 
there in the well saying it should be taken out.
  We think it is fundamentally wrong, it is outrageous that this issue 
is even contentious, because this is nothing more than a technical fix. 
In the gentleman's heart of heart, he knows it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how anybody could say that 
something that affects 130,000 working people, that has not had one 
minute of hearing in the House committees or the Senate committees, 
that was put into the conference committee, is a technical correction. 
I would like to take a look at that dictionary to see what technical 
correction really means.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible thing. This is a terrible affront to 
the working men and women of America, that this type of proviso could 
be inserted into this otherwise great bill. For anybody to jeopardize 
the millions of Americans that fly every year, the protections that are 
put in this bill are jeopardized by putting this proviso in there.
  I think we would do best to defeat the rule, then extract this 
amendment, and I am sure that the conference committee, it probably 
would go through without a negative vote.
  I just think that the stakes are too high. Regardless of what party 
the gentleman is in who inserted this amendment in the Senate, I just 
think it is the wrong place. This should be debated before it gets to 
the conference committee report. This should have been debated in the 
House. This should have been debated in the Senate. This should not end 
up on our doorstep, at the 11th hour, when we are trying to get out of 
this place.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope my colleagues would join me in voting 
against the rule, so we can strip out this terrible provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 187, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               YEAS--222

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Boucher
     Campbell
     Chapman
     Dellums
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Green (TX)
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnston
     Largent
     Levin
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Quillen
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Rose
     Solomon
     Thompson
     Wilson

                              {time}  1243

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Porter for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas against.


[[Page H11455]]


  Messrs. DAVIS, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, and McHUGH changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 540, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3539) to amend title 49, United 
States Code, to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Pursuant to House Resolution 
540, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 26, 1996, at page H11289.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] will each 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is an omnibus aviation bill that 
includes many important issues that the Subcommittee on Aviation has 
considered during the 104th Congress. This conference report 
incorporates many bills and issues, including the FAA reauthorization, 
aviation safety, FAA reform passed by the House this March, the child 
pilot safety bill passed by the House this July, the pilot record 
sharing bill, passed by the House this July, the aviation security 
bill, passed by the House this August, assistance to families of 
passengers involved in aircraft accidents, passed by the House earlier 
this month, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority bill.
  It is a good bill. It is a must piece of legislation, because if this 
is not passed and signed into law, our airports across America will get 
no funding for their airport improvement programs. Therefore, it is 
absolutely imperative that we pass this legislation.
  As far as I know, there is only one issue which has been made 
controversial, an issue which many of us believe should not be 
controversial, because it is a technical correction. It is an issue 
which was offered by Senator Hollings, a Democrat, in conference in the 
Senate, supported by all of the Senate conferees, Republicans and 
Democrats, and supported by the Republicans in the House.
  Therefore, the provision is a technical correction to correct a 
provision in the bill in which we eliminated the ICC. It is referred to 
as the Fed-Ex provision. We believe that this should not be 
controversial at all, because, as a matter of good faith, it is simply 
correcting something that was inadvertently left out of the legislation 
when the ICC bill was passed. Nevertheless, it has become 
controversial, and I am sure it will be debated as we move along here 
this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this conference 
report, because if we do not support it, if it goes down, there will be 
no funding for America's airports in the coming years.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1996.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Shuster: This is in response to your letter of 
     September 3, 1996, requesting our opinion as to whether 
     certain proposed changes to the Federal approving legislation 
     for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (the 
     ``Authority'') would result in the Authority being viewed as 
     a Federal instrumentality under the Internal Revenue Code 
     (the ``Code'') rules governing issuance of tax-exempt bonds. 
     The Authority is established as an interstate compact by laws 
     of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The compact was 
     approved by Congress in the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-591, the ``Act''); the Act also provided 
     for a lease of Washington National and Dulles International 
     Airports to the Authority. The Authority has been viewed as a 
     political subdivision of Virginia during past periods when it 
     was permitted to incur debt because it was created by 
     Virginia law, operates in Virginia with respect to property 
     located in the Commonwealth, and possesses the power of 
     eminent domain and the police power, two of the three 
     principal indicia of governmental status under the Code's 
     tax-exempt bond rules.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ The third principal factor is the power to tax, which has 
     not been granted to the Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Your proposed legislation would reverse several limitations 
     currently placed on the Authority as a result of a court 
     determination that a Congressional Review Board is 
     unconstitutional. The proposed legislation also would (1) 
     expand the Authority's Board of Directors to include two 
     additional directors appointed by the President and (2) 
     sunset certain reinstated powers and benefits after five 
     years. The concerns about future issuance of tax-exempt bonds 
     for the Authority arise from the latter proposed amendments 
     to the Act.
       The Code exempts interest on debt of States and local 
     governments from the regular income tax when the debt is 
     incurred to finance activities conducted by those 
     governmental entities or to finance certain private 
     activities specified in the Code. One such private activity 
     is financing for airport facilities. Interest on both debt of 
     the Federal Government and debt issued by any other entity 
     (including States or local governments) for the benefit of 
     the Federal Government is taxable. Further, under 
     longstanding Treasury Department rules, if a beneficiary of 
     tax-exempt bonds ceases to qualify for this subsidized 
     financing, interest on the bonds (in certain cases) becomes 
     taxable retroactive to the date the bonds are issued 
     (referred to as ``change in use'' rules). A prohibited change 
     in use could occur, for example, if the Authority were to 
     become a Federal instrumentality during the term of any 
     previously issued debt as a result of sunset provisions in 
     relevant authorizing legislation. If the possibility of such 
     a change in use were specified in legislation when bonds were 
     issued, required certifications of tax-exemption could not be 
     made. An unqualified opinion from the bond counsel of the 
     issuer as to the tax-exempt nature of interest is required at 
     the time of bond issuance as part of industry marketing 
     requirements, and certain information reports must be made to 
     the Internal Revenue Service (the ``IRS'') that debt which 
     purports to be tax-exempt has been issued.
       The relevant Code tax-exempt bond rules do not provide 
     specific guidance on when an entity is treated as a Federal 
     instrumentality. Rather, that determination is made by the 
     IRS based on all relevant facts and circumstances. The IRS 
     has issued no guidance directly on point to your inquiry. As 
     a result, the only manner in which a binding determination 
     could be made would be either revenue legislation enacted by 
     the Congress or a ruling letter issued to the Authority by 
     the IRS. Because of the absence of clear present-law 
     authority on the effect of your proposal, we recommended to 
     your Aviation Subcommittee staff that the Authority and its 
     bond counsel be contacted to discuss in detail the source of 
     the concerns which had been expressed to you about the 
     proposed legislation. A conference call was held with your 
     staff and Authority counsel on September 11, 1996. At the 
     request of the Aviation Subcommittee staff, this letter 
     outlines the matters discussed in that conference call.
       The Authority counsel concurred with the Joint Committee 
     staff that there is no tax guidance directly on point to the 
     questions raised by your proposed legislation. We discussed 
     with the counsel the factors which might lead them to 
     conclude that they could obtain a favorable ruling from the 
     IRS, if requested, and therefore issue a favorable tax 
     opinion on future bonds of the Authority if your proposals 
     were enacted. The counsel stated that such a determination 
     would be based on whether the Authority remained as valid 
     political subdivision of Virginia. They cautioned that any 
     final legislation would have to be reviewed in its totality 
     to determine whether the Authority continued to be a 
     political subdivision of Virginia before making such a 
     determination; however, they did state that the two changes 
     you propose, viewed standing alone, would not in all cases 
     lead them to opine that the Authority had become a Federal 
     instrumentality.
       Specifically, the counsel stated that the mere expansion of 
     the Authority's Board of Directors from 11 directors to 13, 
     with the two additional directors being appointed by the 
     President, would not preclude their giving a favorable tax 
     opinion for future bond issuances based on their belief that 
     they would receive a favorable ruling from the IRS, if 
     requested. This statement was conditioned upon any such 
     expansion being drafted to preserve the existing 
     procedures whereby directors are appointed pursuant to the 
     Virginia statute creating the Authority, rather than 
     pursuant to Federal law. On the other hand, if Virginia 
     law were overridden in providing for the additional 
     directors, the counsel stated that they would decline to 
     give a favorable opinion. The counsel noted that amendment 
     of the relevant Virginia statutes is limited by the State 
     legislature's rules and schedule, and that any legislation 
     that is enacted should take into account at least minimum 
     time periods needed to comply with those requirements.
       Your legislation also proposes a sunset of certain 
     Authority powers, including the power to issue additional 
     debt, after a five-year period. Unlike similar provisions 
     which we understand to have been included in some past 
     versions of this proposal, however, this

[[Page H11456]]

     sunset would not affect the status of the Authority as a 
     continuing entity. Provided that the powers subject to the 
     sunset provision are not essential to the Authority's 
     continued status as a political subdivision of Virginia, both 
     we and bond counsel concur that the provision should not 
     preclude continued eligibility of Authority debt for tax-
     exemption. However, if the legislation were drafted to 
     terminate the Authority or powers essential to its status as 
     a political subdivision, as opposed to limiting certain of 
     its other powers, we and the Authority's counsel agree that 
     the change in use rules described above would preclude future 
     issuance of Authority debt as tax-exempt.
       In conclusion, while certain additional Federal 
     restrictions may be imposed on the Authority without 
     precluding tax-exemption for its debt, there is no direct 
     legal authority on how pervasive those restrictions may be. 
     Any such restrictions must be carefully structured to avoid 
     adversely affecting the Authority's continued status as a 
     political subdivision of Virginia.
       I hope this information is helpful as you finalize your 
     proposed legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth J. Kies.
                                                                    ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: I am writing to you regarding the 
     pending conference report on H.R. 3539, the Federal Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act of 1996. As I stated in an earlier 
     letter, I remain opposed to any provisions to create a 
     ``fast-track'' procedure in the House for considering 
     possible tax legislation in the future.
       The Committee on Ways and Means has always been cooperative 
     in giving Administration proposals their due consideration. I 
     want to reassure you and the other conferees that my 
     opposition to legislative mandates does not preclude 
     expeditious consideration of recommendations of the 
     Administration by the Committee on Ways and Means as 
     appropriate. With best personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, on the whole, with one glaring exception, an 
excellent and bipartisan piece of legislation. Beginning with the work 
in the subcommittee, throughout the hearing process, the chairmanship 
of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and the leadership on our 
side of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the subcommittee 
worked together, ironed out many contentious issues, others of lesser 
significance, but worked through all of the fundamental aviation 
issues, to produce a truly fine piece of legislation.
  In full committee we did again the same thing. Working together with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, we were able to come 
to accommodation on major issues. We have already discussed these 
previously on the floor when the bill passed the House.
  The conference report largely reflects the House position on most of 
the significant aviation issues concerning structure and formula for 
the Aviation Improvement Program. All airports are going to receive 
their full formula allocation. The allocations for general aviation 
airports are streamlined and improved in many respects.
  We placed more emphasis on the need for a strong discretionary fund 
in the airport improvement program, and the reason for that 
discretionary fund is to underscore the role of the Secretary of 
Transportation in ensuring that we have a national system of airports.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason for the role of the secretary is to ensure 
that we integrate our national airports in the spirit of the national 
system of integrated airports. That is the concept of the airport 
improvement program.
  The conference report provides for a minimum discretionary fund of 
$300,000 for fiscal year 1997. That is an important provision. It means 
that in the future, emphasis will be able to be placed on those 
airports that truly contribute in a very special way to the movement of 
people and goods throughout the Nation's air space.
  The conference report also supports an important letter of intent 
program. That is important for major mega projects, to ensure that the 
revenue stream will be available over the period of several years 
needed to complete these large airports, like improvement of Hartsfield 
airport in Atlanta, and of DFW, O'Hare, of Los Angeles, of JFK, where 
you have major aviation traffic and projects that cannot be done 
overnight, that take years of planning and years to complete.

  So the letter of intent is vitally important to ensure there will be 
sufficient funds, and that provision provides about $150 million for 
high priority projects that offer expansion in capacity and improvement 
in safety.
  At the beginning of our process, there was a lot of pressure to 
eliminate the noise setaside program, the so-called part 150 program of 
FAA. The bill rejects that rather ill-conceived notion. Noise funding 
is a capacity issue. If people living near the airport or within the 
noise footprint of the airport object to increased traffic, then you 
cannot flow more traffic into that airport. If you can abate the noise, 
calm neighbors' concerns, you really have, in effect, increased the 
capacity of the airport.
  By the end of the decade, thanks to the 1990 aviation bill, we will 
cut in half the number of people impacted by noise, and this 
legislation continues that commitment.
  The bill also includes legislation previously passed in the House to 
require airlines to share pilot training records so bad pilots can be 
weeded out of the system, to ensure the tragedy that befell the 7-year-
old child pilot trying to set a cross-country record is not going to 
happen again, to ensure that families of aircraft accidents, victims, 
are getting the proper consideration and care and sensitive treatment 
and the information and the prompt response that they require in the 
aftermath of an aviation tragedy.
  The bill will also remove the constitutional problems associated with 
the Metropolitan Washington Airport Commission and a bill that we 
passed in the House in August concerning anti-terrorism measures.
  The bill also brings small commuter airports up to the higher 
standards of major airports and inaugurates a pilot program to review 
the privatization of airports, whether this privatization program might 
be a good way to attract additional capital investment airports need 
that they otherwise cannot achieve in order to expand capacity.
  Mr. Speaker, for these and a host of other reasons, other provisions 
of the bill that I need not go into at this time, I think we ought to 
pass that part of the bill, the part that is offensive, which I shall 
address in later remarks.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to H.R. 3539, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act.
  First, let me congratulate the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], for his outstanding leadership on this bill and throughout 
the entire 104th Congress.
  He has been, in my opinion, one of the, if not the most effective and 
hardest working chairmen in the entire Congress.
  I also want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Oberstar, and the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. 
Lipinski, for their expertise in aviation matters and for their 
bipartisanship throughout this entire Congress.
  We have certainly accomplished significant improvements to aviation 
in this Nation by working together.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act conference 
report, H.R. 3539, is a comprehensive measure that this House can be 
proud of. It is must pass legislation. If we do not pass this 
conference report, no airport in this Nation will receive any Federal 
grants to make much needed improvements to their respective airports.
  No Federal funds can be spent to improve our aging air traffic 
control equipment, which so desperately needs to be updated. Mandated 
airport security requirements will go unfunded.

[[Page H11457]]

  We just cannot afford to let these things go unfinished. We must pass 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, by the end of this year, there will have been well over 
500 million passengers boarding planes all across this country. Experts 
predict that this number will increase to more than 800 million in just 
10 years time.
  I cannot stress enough the urgency of this legislation.
  We have addressed many important issues in this conference report in 
a very bipartisan manner and I think members on both sides and staff 
have done an outstanding job.
  We have worked throughout this entire process in a bipartisan manner 
and we have also worked closely with our colleagues in the Senate.
  This conference report is very similar to the House passed bill. 
Although we had a 3-year authorization, the Senate had a 1-year 
authorization. So we split the difference in conference and agreed to a 
2-year authorization.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will bring needed and additional 
reforms to the personnel and procurement systems at the FAA, very 
similar to the FAA reforms that were included in H.R. 2276, that the 
House passed unanimously in March. It helps move the FAA into the 21st 
century in a very businesslike manner.
  It also incorporates and improves upon several of the aviation 
security measures that the House passed just 1 month ago. We have 
required criminal background checks for certain airport employees, 
required standards for airport security personnel, called for 
improvements to passenger profiling, to help detect bombs and 
terrorists, allowed bomb sniffing dogs to be used at our largest 
airports, and several other security improvements.
  In addition, the conference report also includes the pilot record 
sharing bill, the Child Pilot Safety Act, and the Aviation Disaster 
Family Assistance Act, all of which were overwhelmingly passed by the 
House this year.
  It expands the State block grant program, so that two additional 
States can be more involved in the allocation of Federal dollars to 
airports in their respective States.
  The conference report includes a scaled back version of the 
Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority legislation that the 
Transportation Committee favorably reported.
  I am very pleased that this conference report includes a new and 
innovative privatization pilot program, developed in our subcommittee, 
that will allow at least five airports across the Nation to become 
private.
  With scarce Federal dollars we need to be looking at new ways of 
doing things. And I think this pilot program will be very successful 
just as other privatization efforts have been in several other 
countries.
  It will be good for the taxpayers and the flying public.
  And Mr. Speaker, this conference report establishes a Commission to 
review alternative financing methods that will enable us to develop a 
stabilized funding system for the FAA in the near future.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help every airport in the 
Nation.
  We have adjusted the formulas under the airport improvement program 
so that the entitlements for all but I think four airports across the 
Nation will be increased, and those are the four largest airports and 
they wanted a larger discretionary fund for the FAA and so we have take 
care of all of the smaller- and medium-sized airports in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the flying public pays for much of our aviation system 
and infrastructure through a 10-percent ticket tax. These taxes are 
placed in the aviation trust fund. So we have a system that is mainly 
payed for by those who use the system.
  And I hope that we can push forward again in the next Congress, like 
we did here in the House earlier this year, by approving Chairman 
Shuster's trust funds-off budget legislation.
  This will also enable us to make aviation security and safety 
improvements. And it will be mainly payed for by those who use the 
aviation system in this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an outstanding conference report that I believe 
every Member of the House can and should support.
  We need to improve aviation security and aviation safety in this 
Nation--and we should do it as soon as possible.
  We must pass this conference report today. The American people 
deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Lipinski] has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFAZIO
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. There are, indeed, many important parts to this legislation, 
those that go to security, those that go to the infrastructure of the 
air traffic system in this country, and a provision which I worked hard 
to get in my decade here in Congress; that is, to finally say that the 
FAA's business is to regulate in the public interest and regulate for 
safety and not promote the airlines.
  Those are the good parts of this bill. They have merit and they 
should be enacted into law.
  Unfortunately, what we have here is one last attempt at the very last 
moment to put in an extraneous matter, voted on by neither committee of 
jurisdiction, voted on neither by the House or the Senate, to benefit 
one very large multinational corporation who has generously filled many 
campaign coffers of Members of this House and the other body.
  This is not a technical correction. It is not a technical correction. 
Do trucks run on rails? No. Well, we are going to classify Federal 
Express for the purposes of this bill as a rail carrier.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one very simple reason for that. It makes 
it a lot harder to organize. So, once again, the working people of this 
country are going to be screwed by a large corporation, screwed behind 
the closed doors of a conference committee. Special interest provisions 
are being put into what is an otherwise meritorious must-pass bill for 
this Congress.
  We can defeat this bill and send a message to the big corporations: 
It is not business as usual here in Washington anymore.
  What happened to the changes in the revolution? Is this the 
revolution? Special interest for one large corporation stuck into a 
bill that otherwise benefits the people of America generally and would 
not hurt the working people. It is not too much to ask.
  Reject this bill. If we do not reject it, the President may well veto 
it. Let us reject it, send it back to conference, get the special 
interest provision, this provision for one large company, taken out and 
get a clean bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Railroads of the Committee on Transporation.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and perhaps at the risk of trying to restore some sense of order, 
sanity and, hopefully, some reasonableness back into this House, I 
would like to explain, in fact, without the political hysteria that has 
just gone on, exactly what happened here.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about, and there has been references made 
with some very colorful language, to the Hollings amendment that is 
included in this conference report has drawn far more controversy than 
it should have. A careful review of the facts, as opposed to the 
rhetoric, should bear this out.
  To begin with, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, 
which was enacted last December, removed the term ``Express Company'' 
from the I.C.C. statute. This was done at the suggestion of the then 
ICC--now the Surface Transportation Board--because the staff believed 
the term no longer had any meaning. The ICC bill also included many 
conforming amendments to other laws. One of these conforming amendments 
removed the term ``Express Company'' from the Railway Labor Act, again 
under the assumption that the term was obsolete and had no meaning.
  The assumption, that ``Express Company'' no longer had any meaning, 
was true for ICC purposes. What no one realized at the time, however, 
is that the

[[Page H11458]]

term does have meaning for National Mediation Board purposes in 
determining who is and who is not covered by the Railway Labor Act. In 
fact, as recently as 1993, the National Mediation Board has used the 
term ``Express Company'' standard in deciding Railway Labor Act cases.
  So the effect of the drafting error in the ICC Termination Act is 
possibly to jeopardize certain entities' existing status under the 
Railway Labor Act. This ambiguity flies in the face of the stated 
intent of the ICC legislation--made explicit at labor's request--not to 
``expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers under the 
Railway Labor Act.''
  The Hollings amendment would simply correct the mistake that was made 
in the ICC Termination Act by restoring the Railway Labor Act legal 
standards that existed before the ICC Termination Act was enacted. It 
would not make it more difficult to organize, as some critics have 
claimed, since no one's status is being altered. It would not affect 
trucking companies, since trucking companies are explicitly excluded by 
statute from the Railway Labor Act. What it would do is correct an 
honest mistake that certain groups are trying to exploit to their own 
advantage.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the facts of this issue and vote 
``yes'' on the conference report.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, 
I was expecting to support this conference report. The gentleman from 
Tennessee, Chairman Duncan, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
Shuster, the gentleman from Minnesota, Ranking Member Oberstar, and the 
gentleman from Illinois, Ranking Member Lipinski, and the other members 
of the committee as well as the staff put in countless hours crafting a 
bill that was bipartisan in nature and would easily have passed this 
House.
  That is why I am so disappointed. We now find ourselves in a heated 
debate over one provision in this bill, a provision that is beyond the 
scope of the conference report.
  The majority has inserted language to reinstate the language 
``express carrier'' as a recognized term in the Railway Labor Act, a 
term that was deleted by the majority in the ICC Termination Act just a 
few months ago. It was not done by accident, it was not an oversight on 
the part of some clerk. It was deliberate and reasonable because, 
according to the ICC and its successor, the Surface Transportation 
Board, there are no companies left that fall into that classification. 
But we know the real reason why this is being done.
  With this language, the Federal Express Corporation, a large source 
of campaign contributions for lots of people, will be able to apply to 
be reclassified as a so-called express carrier. If the Federal Express 
were successful, it would be able to deny to its truck drivers the 
protections afforded by the National Labor Relations Act of their right 
to organize a labor union, should they wish to do so.
  Why has Federal Express suddenly found the need to be classified as 
an express carrier? The classification has been around for more than 20 
years. What has changed? Why is it suddenly so important? It is 
obvious: to keep out the union. This is a union-busting provision, pure 
and simple. If, as was stated, this is simply a technical correction 
being made, why was it not done at the committee level? Why was it not 
done at the House? Why was it not done at the Senate? Why this last 
minute secret addition in the conference report? Why does the Committee 
on Rules have to waive the point of order to make this 
nonconferenceable provision admissible into the conference report?
  It is terrible that we are now perhaps jeopardizing billions of 
dollars in airport construction funds in order to carry out some secret 
promise to one company. If this is a reasonable request, let us have 
hearings, let us have some debate about this. This is the wrong time to 
be doing this. It is the wrong bill to be doing this in.
  I urge a no vote on this conference report as long as it contains 
this nefarious ``FEDEX'' amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of good reasons to oppose this bad 
legislation, but let me tell my colleagues about another less 
publicized provision. This is a Republican special interest fix which 
was so bungled we are not in this legislation about to eliminate a key 
airline safety provision.
  The tale starts with some airline companies that were concerned that 
EPA may be overly aggressive in regulating airplane emissions from 
engines. I, too, frequently have criticized the EPA for its 
ovezealousness but I cannot support the solution that this conference 
has advised.
  I would also point out that existing law, the Clean Air Act, forbids 
this action from being taken by EPA where it would jeopardize the 
health and the safety of the traveling public.
  As passed out of the Senate committee, the measure included a 
provision which stripped EPA of its power to regulate aircraft engine 
emissions. When the measure got to the Senate floor, an amendment was 
adopted that basically stated EPA could not change aircraft emission 
standards where the change would impact engine noise or aviation 
safety.
  Unfortunately, this was translated into legislative language on the 
Senate floor and as adopted by the conference, from which the Committee 
on Commerce, which has jurisdiction and expertise on clean air, was 
excluded, the result was that the provision literally only applies to 
EPA emission standards, which both significantly increases engine noise 
and harms engine safety.
  In other words, as passed by the Senate, the safety concerns alone 
are not enough to stop EPA engine emission standards. Bungling. 
Incompetence.
  Worse, because this new language was placed by the conferees, over my 
strong objections, directly into the Clean Air Act, this provision now 
conflicts with existing provisions of the law in the Clean Air Act 
which allowed FAA to prevent implementation of EPA airplane emission 
standards where airline safety may be compromised. The result is a 
thoroughly screwed up, incompetently done statute, which risks the 
safety of our traveling public.
  We can resolve this whole problem by rejecting the bill and going 
about our business in a more sensible fashion.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my good friend from Michigan as well as my colleagues on 
our side of the aisle on this issue, that it was the Senate bill that 
included this provision. Indeed, both Republicans and Democrats.
  So when my good friend from Michigan calls it a Republican provision; 
the Democrats in the Senate supported this as well as the Republicans, 
I am told. And it gave the FAA a greater role in setting aircraft 
emission standards. It is important because emission standards can 
affect aviation safety as well as aircraft noise.

                              {time}  1315

  Currently, aircraft emissions are controlled by EPA and the House 
Committee on Commerce. We acknowledge that. We agreed with this 
provision in conference for the sake of safety, not committee, 
jurisdiction. The provision was changed in conference, indeed, to make 
it more acceptable to the Committee on Commerce. Our staffs worked with 
the Committee on Commerce to try to make it more acceptable.
  We would be happy to continue to work with that committee on this 
issue and we certainly acknowledge their jurisdiction on this issue, 
and we have already committed to put that in writing, that we will 
indeed acknowledge that this is their jurisdiction on this issue. It 
was a Senate provision which we found in the course of negotiating in 
the conference we had to accept in order to get on with the 
legislation.

[[Page H11459]]

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the answer is the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure thoroughly bollixed up and botched 
this matter. Airline safety is adversely affected because the committee 
did not talk to the Committee on Commerce and because the Committee on 
Commerce was excluded. The result is that the traveling public is going 
to be much less safe under this legislation than they are under 
existing law.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 3539, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 
1996. We must pass this bill without delay. The time is way overdue.
  This year the FAA has been the target, and rightfully so in many 
cases, of public concern over aviation security and airline safety. In 
this crucial time when we are asking the FAA to secure our airports and 
ensure the safety of our planes, this is no time to let a partisan 
squabble over a technical amendment threaten the future of the FAA, our 
airports, and our airline passengers.
  For the last 2 years of this Congress, I have been a strong advocate 
of FAA reform. In fact, I introduced my own FAA reform bill, H.R. 2403, 
just 1 year ago this month.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes the final steps to set these reforms in 
motion. We can all rest easier when we fly knowing that the FAA will be 
able to place qualified and satisfied air traffic controllers in towers 
and cities across our Nation. This bill also ensures that the FAA can 
begin replacing its outdated air traffic control computer with reliable 
and updated computer systems that will guarantee the safety of our 
Nation's skies.
  Finally, this bill requires airlines and airports to implement 
security screening standards and bomb detection equipment. Again, are 
we going to hold up this bill in the final hour? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass the FAA Authorization Act. Just this 
morning a major airline experienced a security threat at the Nashville 
International Airport, which serves my district. This bill, ensuring 
new safety and security for our Nation's airports, airlines, and 
passengers cannot be delayed. I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 
3539.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, I must rise in opposition to section 406 of H.R. 3539.
  This new section changes current law respecting the promulgation of 
aircraft emission standards. Although the changes are specifically made 
to the Clean Air Act, and not to the underlying bill, I believe this is 
a matter which is properly addressed through the normal legislative 
process and not through last minute legislating in a conference which 
was closed to the committee of jurisdictional interest in this matter.
  The new section 406 is not a radical departure from current law. It 
maintains the present requirements of the Clean Air Act for 
consultation between the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Federal Aviation Administration regarding aircraft emission standards.
  However, the new section is duplicative at best and troublesome at 
worst for its attempt to alter standards affecting the promulgation of 
new emission standards. While I do not personally object to considering 
noise and safety as part of developing new emission standards--I do 
object when my subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Air 
Act, is allowed neither time nor opportunity to assess recommended 
changes to the law.
  Section 406 has not been subject to proper review by the Health and 
Environment Subcommittee and there is no legislative record to support 
its inclusion in H.R. 3539. This section was added without the consent 
of the Commerce Committee or the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment.
  Years ago, I objected when such provisions were added by the former 
majority in various bills and conference reports--most often late in 
the session and very often late at night. I do not believe the new 
majority should fall into the same trap of ignoring bona fide interest 
and expertise of the committee of jurisdiction. As we all know, what 
may appear to be simple and innocuous legislative language often can 
have an impact far beyond that which is apparent in the initial review. 
Aircraft emission standards are an important subject for consideration 
within the Clean Air Act and within the committee given explicit 
authority over the act. And so, Mr. Speaker, this is a protest against 
doing business in this manner.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let us focus on what this debate is really about. This 
provision for FedEx is another assault on the American middle class, 
the American middle class that has been attacked for over 15 years by 
our Nation's terrible trade policies, technology, profit driven 
downsizing, profit-driven deregulation, and systematic sinister 
weakening of unions. How, you ask? Let me explain.
  During the debate on the rule, I outlined the history of this dubious 
Federal Express provision. Let us take a closer look at what my 
colleagues are calling a technical correction.
  The last express carrier, as defined by the ICC, went out of 
existence 20 years ago, so at the ICC's suggestion the classification 
was removed from statute because it was obsolete.
  But suddenly, after the ICC bill is signed into law, one company and 
its countless consultants decided that it might want to be an express 
carrier some day and started knocking on doors up here.
  I have already outlined the five other times FedEx has tried to get 
this provision into law. Judging by the consistent effort and expense 
they have gone to, it must really be important for them to remove this 
dead classification.
  But why? Federal Express would not go through all this trouble if 
they were not going to get something out of it. The fact is that it is 
much more difficult for a union to organize under the Railway Labor Act 
than under the National Labor Relations Act.
  Under the RLA a unit of the company would have to be organized 
companywide, while under the NLRA it can be done facility by facility.
  Why is this relevant for a company like Federal Express, which is 
currently classified as an air carrier and already subject to the RLA? 
Federal Express' operations have changed. No longer does every package 
get on a plane. Often it just goes on a truck to its destination.
  I understand that Federal Express' long-term plan is to truck in 
packages less than 400 miles away from their hubs around the country. 
Why would an airline like Federal Express rely so much upon trucks? 
Because it is cheaper. To their credit, Federal Express is planning for 
the future to remain competitive. It sure seems to be working. In 
fiscal year 1996, Federal Express had revenues of $10.3 billion. That 
is $10.3 billion revenues in 1996. It has headquarters in Memphis, 
Miami, Hong Kong, and Brussels, with offices in hundreds of cities 
around the world. And yet, it is afraid of middle-class Americans 
coming together in a union to improve their way of life, improve their 
children's way of life, and expand the American middle class.
  Managers at FedEx get a labor law book which states in large print: 
``Our corporation goal is to remain union free.'' Sections in that 
document are titled: ``What are indications of union activity and what 
can I do?'' ``What can I do to prevent union intervention?'' I have 
that documented right here in my hands at the present time, if anyone 
would like to look at it. No wonder they want to be an express carrier.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no express carriers and have not been any for 
two decades. Federal Express is pushing this provision so it will be 
prepared in the future to meet its corporate objective: Remain union 
free. That is why they have tried to attach this provision to six bills 
in the last 9 months.
  The Republican leadership has decided even though the airports need 
funding, the FAA needs to be reformed

[[Page H11460]]

and aviation security needs to be addressed, as well as the other four 
areas this bill addresses, it is more important to do FedEx a favor.
  Today we have an opportunity to take a stand for the American middle 
class, a small but very significant stand. We can strip from this bill 
the 11th hour, no hearings in subcommittee or full committee, Federal 
Express amendment that makes it much, much more difficult for middle-
class Americans to organize into unions so that they can improve their 
standard of living with better salaries, wages, and benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We may disagree and have different opinions, but I am sure my good 
friend would not want to misstate the facts. When we hear that Federal 
Express is not an express company, that simply is factually incorrect. 
There is no reclassification here. According to the National Mediation 
Board findings of law, it is very clearly spelled out that they are 
recognized as an express company. They have been for as many years as 
they have been in business. So this is a matter of fact, and I am sure 
my friend would not want to mislead the body. I think the fact needs to 
be stated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay.]
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, 
but I am disturbed by the kinds of things that are being said on this 
floor with regard to what is frankly a simple technical correction that 
was made by the conferees of this committee. FedEx is not trying to get 
something that they have not had for many, many years. FedEx is not 
trying to get something new. FedEx is not union bashing. FedEx 
understands that we made a mistake in the Interstate Commerce 
Commission Termination Act, and they are trying to regain and correct 
that mistake. It is fairness here. And I am very disturbed that like 
the ads that are being run against us time and time again out in the 
country and almost $100 million misrepresenting what we have been doing 
in this, once again the facts are being misrepresented in this regard.
  When the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act was signed 
into law last year, a drafting error in a conforming amendment created 
an ambiguity concerning the status of express companies under the 
Railroad Labor Act, which is the sole statute governing labor relations 
in the rail and the airline industry. That is fact. Prior to the 
enactment of the ICC Termination Act, the Railway Labor Act had 
jurisdiction over carriers which were defined as ``any express company, 
sleeping car company, carrier by railroad.''

                              {time}  1330

  Due to a drafting error, express companies were inadvertently dropped 
from the scope of the Railway Labor Act, and that is fact. The result 
is that an ambiguity was created.
  The ICC Termination Act states that the enactment of the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of 
the employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act.
  Now clearly, Congress did not intend to change the status of express 
companies with regard to the Railway Labor Act in any way, and 
unfortunately that is the result of this error. So I certainly would 
hope that those Members expressing concerns about this provision are 
not trying to take advantage of an unintended mistake for their own 
gain. This bill simply corrects an error to restore what was the status 
quo in this country.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose any motion to 
recommit that would strip out this provision.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would ask the gentleman, why, if this is just a 
technical thing, was it not put in the House bill back originally?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. DeLAY. Could I have 15 seconds to respond?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just do not have any more time.
  Mr. DeLAY. I hope someone will answer that.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I want to reiterate and adopt what the previous speaker 
said, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. This is nothing more than 
an issue of fairness. As he said and as others have said, there was an 
ambiguity unintentionally created, and I want to read again what we 
said in the bill.
  The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand 
nor contract coverage of the employees and employers by the Railway 
Labor Act.
  These are not my words; these are the words of Congress. Some of the 
people who are opposing the conference report for this reason are the 
very ones that drafted it. These are not our words; these are the words 
of Congress.
  And to say this is any way antilabor is simply untrue. As a matter of 
fact, there are a higher percentage of workers unionized under the 
National Railway Labor Act than there are under the National Labor 
Relations Act, and I see it as a basic matter of fairness to correct an 
unintended error made in drafting.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say something else about FedEx. I represent 
part of Memphis, TN. Federal Express has dedicated 100 percent of their 
aircraft to the civil patrol. They flew more missions in Desert Storm 
than any other civilian aircraft company in this country. Fred Smith is 
a dedicated patriot who served in Vietnam, crawled through the rice 
paddies, and I resent this attack on one company because of a drafting 
error that is clearly the intent of Congress to correct today, and that 
is all this matter is about.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I not only am a lover of cats, but I love 
flowers, and flowers are very beautiful, and what I saw developing as 
this bill passed through the House, passed through the Senate, started 
in the conference up to Wednesday was a beautiful bouquet of flowers 
that smelled just beautifully. And then Wednesday night, something 
happened. Wednesday night, a skunk snuck in a beautiful flower garden 
and smelled up the whole thing, and this bill now just smells, smells, 
smells terribly.
  Why? Because of one special interest provision that was put in there 
for Federal Express. That is all. The rest of the bill is fine.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois who worked so hard on 
this legislation to get all the good points in, and I want to commend 
him and also the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the 
full committee.
  As my colleagues know, this provision which we have heard here, this 
leadership, and I will talk about that leadership in a minute, that 
leadership calls it a technical thing. Did we ever have any hearings on 
it?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, no, there 
were never any hearings on it in the House.
  Mr. VOLKMER. In the subcommittee?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Not in the subcommittee.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Full committee?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Not in the full committee.
  Mr. VOLKMER. How about the Senate? Did they have any in subcommittee 
or full committee?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. No hearings in the subcommittee or full committee in 
the Senate.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That explains why it was not in the bill when it passed 
the House and the Senate.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Absolutely.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Because it really did not need to be in this bill, but 
all of a sudden--now it was not in either bill when it passed through 
the House or the Senate; is that correct?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now how many times has Fed Ex tried to get this 
provision in other bills unsuccessfully before this bill?

[[Page H11461]]

  Mr. LIPINSKI. At least five and perhaps six. I cannot confirm the 
sixth one, but I certainly can confirm five occasions.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now if this was purely a technical little provision that 
really did not harm anybody or do anything, they would not have that 
problem; would they?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. It is my opinion that they would not, no.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now, as my colleagues know, I have been reading about 
this, and I admire the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and up to Wednesday 
night I would say he helped grow that beautiful bouquet of flowers.
  But I would like to quote the gentleman from Pennsylvania when this 
came up in conference. It says:

       Representative Shuster: I am told by my staff that this is 
     clean language to accomplish what the Senator stated. I am 
     instructed by our leadership to accept it from my 
     perspective.

  That is what I find, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, from the 
leadership, and I find that leadership down on the floor, but I also 
find that leadership has raised all kinds of dollars all through this 
political process through this whole Congress from special interests.
  And I would like to ask anybody in this body, ethics, I think 
somebody should take a look at the Federal Election Commission reports 
and let us see where Fed Ex money is going to. How much is the 
Republican National Committee getting from Fed Ex? How much is the 
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee getting from Fed Ex? How 
much are the members of the leadership on that side getting from Fed 
Ex?
  I think there is our answer right there, Members. That is what this 
is all about. It is a payoff; that is all it is, is a payoff.
  Now even the gentleman from Tennessee, the subcommittee chairman, and 
he is up at the Committee on Rules, he did not say he wanted this. And 
I admire that gentleman greatly. He said in answer to the chairman's 
question in the Committee on Rules, ``It would have suited me if it was 
not in there.'' That is what he said. Now, that is the truth. It is 
better not to be in here.
  The best thing we can do to get this skunk out of the flower bed is 
to defeat this bill, and if the bill is not defeated, I think we all 
should urge the President to veto this smelly, skunky bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for 
yielding the time.
  Let me congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle for bringing 
this bill to the floor and the job that they have done in reauthorizing 
the FAA and in furthering many projects that need to be done to improve 
the Nation's airports.
  Now we all know that there has been a great change in this Congress. 
We have just not restored common sense back to Congress, but we have 
also brought an awful lot of accountability back to Congress, and when 
we make a mistake, we have had the courage to stand up and to correct 
that mistake. That is why we are here today, fighting over one small 
provision of this bill.
  When we eliminated the ICC last year, we made a drafting mistake, and 
I think every Member of this body understands it was truly a mistake. 
And since then, we have lawyers around America trying to exploit the 
mistake that was made when we eliminated the ICC.
  What we are trying to do today is to have the courage and the guts to 
stand up to do what is right and to fix the mistake that we made and to 
stop those from exploiting this innocent mistake for their own 
professional good or, frankly, for their own livelihood.
  Now the outrageous claims that were just made by the previous 
speaker, I am not going to even provide enough dignity to what was said 
to respond to it, other than no person's name, no company's name ever 
ought to be uttered on the floor of this House.
  We know we made a mistake. Let us stand up and do the right thing.
  We know in the Senate, where this provision came from, that the 
Senate Members unanimously agreed to put it in the bill. That means all 
of the Democrat Senators and all of the Republican Senators in the 
other body unanimously argued to put this provision in this bill.
  That is where it came from, that is why it is here, and that is why 
we are dealing with it today. But more importantly, we are dealing with 
it because it is the right thing to do, to admit we made a mistake and 
correct it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this is being 
painted as a union vote, and it seems incredible to me that it could be 
cast in those terms. It is simply correcting a technical error that was 
made when the ICC Regulation Termination Act was passed.
  Someone having firsthand knowledge of this, actually having facts in 
this case, will understand that while Federal Express was under the 
Railway Labor Act, that in fact its pilots did unionize. So I am not 
sure I understand the facts that this is an antiunion vote.
  I might also cite the national statistics on this, that folks under 
the National Labor Relations Act in the private sector are unionized 
about 11 percent, whereas under the Railway Labor Act they are 
unionized 65 to 70 percent.
  So, again, I fail to see how this could possibly be, under any 
circumstances, an antiunion or a union vote.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing to correct this mistake 
and give the relief sought.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this bill. 
Let me just talk to the Members on our side.
  This bill expands the essential air service that our Committee on the 
Budget voted to phase out. I thought we had abolished all the ice 
buckets on Capitol Hill. We have created a massive ice bucket with 
regard to this bill. We are expanding essential air service.
  There are so many other things, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to 
revise and extend. I strongly urge my colleagues on this side to vote 
against this bill, because when they read this bill later on next week, 
they will be very regretful that they voted to spend all this 
additional money.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I could vote for the conference report to H.R. 
3539, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. This bill funds 
airport improvements, air traffic control facilities and equipment, and 
salaries and expenses to operate the FAA.
  But the bill includes amendments to the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Act which I find unacceptable. Colleagues who were serving in 
the mid-1980's may recall the legislation to turn control of the two 
metropolitan Washington airports--National and Dulles--from the Federal 
Government to a local authority.
  We got the Federal Government out of the airport management business 
and established an authority made up of a majority of local residents 
to run these two airports located in Virginia. And what has happened 
since the 1986 act establishing the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority? I believe everyone would agree that it's been a true success 
story. I submit here for the Record a copy of statistics on the success 
of the two airports.
  Both airports have had major renovation and expansion projects 
underway and are serving more passengers more efficiently than ever 
before in modern and safe facilities.
  If there has been one ongoing source of contention, though, in this 
almost decade-long process of having the local authority operate these 
airports, it has been the Congressional Board of Review which was set 
up in tandem with the Airports Authority as a way to keep congressional 
oversight and even, some would say, control over the airports.
  I never believed the Review Board was necessary because Congress 
already has a built-in mechanism for oversight and that's the committee 
hearing process. Court challenges also were made to the Review Board 
and twice the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Review Board as 
unconstitutional.
  Legislation was then introduced to try to keep Congress involved with 
the airports and get around the constitutional challenges. What has 
emerged in this Congress as provisions in the FAA conference report are 
changes to the make-up of the Airports Authority board of directors 
which I find incongruous with one of the primary changes this Congress 
has tried to make in the area of Federal mandates and turning back 
control to State and local governments of what should be State and 
local government decisions.

[[Page H11462]]

  This conference report mandates two additional directors to the MWAA 
board appointed by the President and specifically mandates that the two 
additional appointments ``shall be registered voters of States other 
than Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.'' Furthermore, 
provisions in the conference report for the two additional 
Presidentially appointed board members state that ``in carrying out 
their duties on the board, members of the board appointed by the 
President shall ensure that adequate consideration is given to the 
national interest.''
  That is wholly unacceptable and defies what this Congress has tried 
to accomplish in turning back control of program and decisionmaking to 
the local and State levels.
  Another provision in his conference report is merely a job protection 
provision for a former employee of the Congressional Board of Review. 
Even though the Board of Review is terminated, this bill provides that 
this employee will continue to have a position with the Department of 
Transportation serving `'to assist the Secretary in carrying out this 
Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of aviation programs but am 
convinced that the provisions in the conference report to H.R. 3539 
relating to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority are 
unnecessary and regret that these provisions are included in 
legislation I would like to support. I thought we got rid of ice 
buckets.
  There are other bad provisions in this bill and I therefore oppose 
H.R. 3539.

              You Can Only Trade As Far As You Can Travel

       Prepared for the Washington Initiative's European Mission.


                washington enjoys excellent air service

       In today's global market the efficiency of a region as a 
     business location is a function of its air service 
     availability. The Washington region's businesses work with 
     local governments, the airports, and the federal government 
     to attract new air services and to represent the travelers' 
     and the shippers' interests. As a result, Washington's air 
     service choices have more than doubled in ten years and 
     Washington Dulles is projected to be one of the top five 
     international gateways to the U.S. by 2002.
       Washington's excellent demographics form one of the 
     nation's largest domestic and international aviation markets. 
     Combined with the city's strategic geographic location, this 
     market gives Washington based companies a very wide choice of 
     competitive services from a choice of airports, including:
       238 international flights a week operated by 20 carriers, 
     provide direct service in 32 markets principally from 
     Washington Dulles, including nonstop service to all major 
     European gateways and Tokyo.\1\ (Canadian services also 
     operate from National.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Summer 1996 Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       More than 600 daily domestic flights from Dulles and 
     National serve 77 U.S. destinations nonstop and provide 
     single plane or one stop connecting service to virtually 
     every community in the United States receiving scheduled air 
     service.
       New low-fare services saved travelers from Washington 
     Dulles and National $97 million in 1995.
       In 1995, Washington Dulles was the 7th largest 
     intercontinental gateway to the United States and ranked 4th 
     as a transatlantic gateway behind New York's JFK, Los Angeles 
     International and Chicago Airports.
       On the east coast, Dulles ranked second only to New York's 
     JFK as a transatlantic and Asian gateway.
       Washington Dulles serves the 3rd largest international 
     market in the United States.
       Washington Dulles is strategically located:
       1. Within a two-hour flight or a day's truck journey of 
     two-thirds of the U.S. and Canadian populations--the world's 
     largest market.
       2. On the Great Circle air routes between the Far East and 
     South America and between Europe and Southern NAFTA.
       Washington Dulles and National Airports, 36 airlines 
     provide:
       1. Nonstop daily service in 77 domestic markets and one-
     stop service to virtually every airport served by scheduled 
     airline service.
       2. Nonstop or single-plan service in 32 international 
     markets, including nonstop service to Tokyo and all major 
     European gateways.
       Washington Dulles Airport European services include:
       1. A choice of three daily nonstop services to Frankfurt 
     with United, Lufthansa and Delta Airlines.
       2. Six daily nonstop flights to London by British Airways, 
     United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic.
       3. Daily service to Amsterdam by United and Northwest/KLM.
       For air cargo shipments Washington offers:
       1. 141 airlines and companies providing freight forwarding, 
     customs brokerage, trucking, warehouse and bonded space, 
     foreign-trade zone, cold storage, and other services with 
     reliable, 24-hour operations.
       2. Modern cargo facilities and a vibrant growing cargo 
     industry.
       3. Paperless, electronic interfaces with U.S. Customs, 
     allowing prompt service and clearance of cargo, in some 
     instances before the plane lands.
       4. Uncongested airport access through the Washington Dulles 
     Access Road and an uncongested extensive road feeder trucking 
     network.
       5. A high standard of secure, rapid and responsive cargo 
     services with extremely low loss and damage levels.


                         the region's airports

       Washington is served by three airports which provides the 
     traveler and shipper with an unusually side competitive 
     choice for fares and services. American cities with only one 
     airport which is predominantly served by one or two carriers 
     typically have fares 18 percent higher than the national 
     norm.
       Washington Dulles International and Washington National 
     Airports are part of the National Capital Region and operated 
     by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--a regional 
     self-funding government agency.
       Baltimore Washington International Airport is located 
     between Washington and Baltimore and operated by the state of 
     Maryland. BWI and Washington Dulles are located approximately 
     40 minutes from downtown Washington. National Airport is 
     located on the Potomac River in the downtown area.
       National Airport is a physically limited facility offering 
     a controlled number of flights to U.S. and Canadian 
     destinations without 1,250 miles. Washington Dulles is the 
     region's full service growth airport with a design capacity 
     of 50 million passengers and 750,000 flights per year with 
     320,424 flights handled over the 12 months ending with July 
     1996. BWI provides a wide range of North American service, 
     including transcontinental, Canadian and Caribbean flights, 
     and transatlantic service principally to the U.K. and 
     Scandinavian countries.
       The Smithsonian plans to open a 720,000 sq. ft. expansion 
     of the National Air & Space Museum at Washington Dulles in 
     2001.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, we at the present time only have two 
speakers remaining. I do not know how many speakers the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has. He still has more time than we have, so I would like 
to try to balance this out, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am still attempting scientifically to 
determine how many speakers I would have, I would say to my friend, but 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend from Virginia, who was in 
the well a moment ago, two points. First of all, the authorized levels 
in this bill are below previous authorized levels; and, second, it is 
easy for someone from a large metropolitan area, indeed, the Nation's 
Capital, to not care about essential air service for rural America. But 
rural America cares about essential air service. Indeed, many of our 
communities are dependent upon it.
  So for those Members on both sides of the aisle who care not only 
about supporting our major metropolitan areas, and we do, but also care 
about supporting rural America, the essential air service provision is 
an important provision.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, if we had not had an agreement 
that created essential air service, we likely would not have had 
deregulation. Continuing EADS is continuing the commitment we made to 
small towns and communities and rural areas across this country, that 
they, too, would be served by aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota, [Mr. Oberstar] the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us just get the record straight on this express 
issue. The reason for ending ICC regulation and oversight of express 
carriers was that the concept of express carrier had become obsolete. 
The ICC staff itself recommended the elimination of express carrier 
status.
  It was not an oversight, it was not something that someone forgot to 
do, it was not something that was neglected in drafting. It was not a 
drafting error. It was done for good reason. The last express carrier 
went out of business in the mid-1970's.
  Federal Express purchased that carrier's operating certificates. The 
Surface Transportation Board, successor to ICC, advised us in writing, 
``Federal Express apparently never engaged in the operations authorized 
by these certificates.''
  Subsequently, Federal Express obtained and operated new certificates

[[Page H11463]]

which, according to the Surface Transportation Board, were ``different 
from the licenses typically issued to motor common carriers to provide 
express service.''
  In short, Mr. Speaker, and factually, without hyperbole, Federal 
Express has never been an express carrier. There have been no other 
express carriers since the 1970's.
  The change in the Railway Labor Act does not deprive Federal Express 
or anyone else of rights they held in 1995. Whether you are an express 
carrier or not is going to be determined on the basis of the nature of 
your operations as a carrier.
  If express carriers continue to be covered by the Railway Labor Act, 
then we will be in an Alice in Wonderland situation. Supposing a 
trucking company is formed in the year 2000 and claims to be an express 
carrier under the Railway Labor Act. How will its case be decided? Will 
the National Mediation Board have to decide whether the ICC would have 
issued to this company an express carrier certificate? It just creates 
a lot of problems.
  Whether Federal Express is an express carrier within the meaning, or 
is a carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, is determined 
on the basis of the dollar volume of its operations and whether the 
preponderance of its operations are as an air carrier or as a truck 
carrier, motor carrier. They are an air carrier.
  We should not, on the thin thread of a nonexistent operation of a 
dormant authority purchased and never used, lock this carrier into a 
statutorily established position within the meaning of the Railway 
Labor Act forever and ever. That is simply wrong.
  If Federal Express wants to make its case, we can hold hearings in 
the ordinary course of events and attempt to find a way, but we should 
not use the subterfuge of dormant authority, never used, never 
undertaken by this carrier, to give them a very special and privileged 
status.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, counsel informs me that Federal Express is indeed an 
express carrier, and refers very specifically to findings of law in 
1993, three different cases, instances before the National Mediation 
Board, in which they state ``Federal Express corporation has been found 
to be a common carrier as defined in 45 U.S.C. 151, First;'' and it 
goes on. The important point is 45 U.S.C. 151, First is the express 
carrier statute. So very clearly, Mr. Speaker, in these findings of law 
Federal Express has been identified as an express carrier.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Lipinski] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the 
cooperation I have had with the gentleman from Minnesota has been 
outstanding, and I sincerely thank him for that, in regard to all these 
aviation bills.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
the chairman of the committee, for the excellent cooperation we have 
had with him, and the majority staff on the Republican side has worked 
extremely well with the minority staff on the Democratic side. They 
have all worked enormously hard on these pieces of legislation.
  They are very, very good pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, none of 
us want to see them fail. But, unfortunately, we do have this Federal 
Express provision in this bill. It was not ever talked about in any 
hearing in the subcommittee or a full committee, in the House or in the 
Senate.
  In fact, there were no discussions between the conferees in regard to 
this particular provision until at the absolute end of the conference, 
when everything else was decided, a Senator brought forth this 
provision. It prevailed. I understand that. But just because it 
prevailed in a conference committee among 10 Members, it should not 
mean that this House has to accept it. Mr. Speaker, this House has a 
right to reject it.
  As I have said before, we all give lip-service to protecting, 
strengthening the American middle class. This is an opportunity to do 
it. This is a $10.7 billion corporation. They can afford to have their 
employees unionized. They can afford to have their employees come 
together for a better way of life, a better way of life for their 
family, a better way of life for themselves.
  If Members truly support the American middle class, if they want to 
see it grow, vote ``no'' on this bill, and we will come back and pass 
this bill without this terrible provision.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with my friends that we should not 
have to be here today on this floor debating this particular issue. 
This issue should have been easily resolved many months ago, and of 
course, as my friends know, we tried to resolve it but they blocked it. 
We were unable to.
  Then, of course, we did not bring this issue to the floor in our 
conference report. Rather, it was offered by our colleagues in the 
Senate, and indeed by Senator Hollings, and passed unanimously by the 
Senate conferees, Republicans and Democrats, and supported by the 
Republican conferees because we believe and are absolutely convinced 
that the evidence is overwhelming that this is nothing more than a 
correction of a mistake, an honest mistake that was made at the time we 
eliminated the ICC.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of rhetoric on the floor here today, 
everything from flowers to skunks, but I would hope we could set the 
rhetoric aside and look at the facts. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the 
facts. There are certain facts that are incontrovertible. Perhaps the 
most significant, the most overwhelming fact of all is that there is 
labor-requested language included in the ICC Termination Act. Let me 
quote what is in the law.
  ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither 
expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway 
Labor Act.'' That was the quote. Let me emphasize it again, that is the 
law: ``It shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and 
employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' I do not see how anybody can 
misinterpret that. It is there. It is a fact. It is the law.
  Then we discovered we had made a mistake. By making that honest 
mistake on both sides of the aisle, we find that this term of the law 
is not met, so we simply are attempting to correct it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to everybody, I think, that our friends 
in labor saw this as a windfall opportunity, the opportunity to 
capitalize on an honest mistake that was made in drafting the 
legislation, so they are attempting to capitalize on this windfall.
  I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that had we discovered an 
unintentional provision of the law which inadvertently hurt labor, I 
would be down in the aisles today, as would many of my colleagues, 
supporting the removal of that unintended provision that hurt labor. 
But, so be it, everybody must make their own judgment.
  The evidence is overwhelming. Indeed, the technical correction 
contained in this report is entirely neutral. It does not predetermine 
the actual status of any company, either in the present or in the 
future. It simply restores the legal standards that were in place 
before the ICC Termination Act was passed.
  So I hope we would set aside the rhetoric, I hope we would set aside 
the misinformation, I hope we would deal with the facts. Indeed, the 
facts are very clear. The law spells out, there is no advantage or 
disadvantage. We are simply correcting a mistake which was made in the 
law. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 
It is must legislation.
  I regret that something that should have been handled routinely much 
earlier has not been handled routinely much earlier, but at bottom, 
what we are doing here is fair. What we are doing here is correcting a 
mistake. Very importantly, what we are doing here is bringing to the 
floor of this House vital aviation legislation so we can continue to 
build and improve the airports of America, the United States of 
America's aviation system, and provide for the safety and security of 
the pension.
  For all of those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
to accompany H.R.

[[Page H11464]]

3539, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. The bill, as 
introduced, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
Committee on Ways and Means was named as conferees on this bill. The 
bill is necessary to extend the expenditure authority of the aviation 
trust fund contained in the Internal Revenue Code, ensuring needed 
funding for the operation of our aviation system, and to enhance air 
safety and security.
  I am very pleased to inform my colleagues that the conference report 
does not include Senate amendments which would have required a fast-
track procedure for House consideration of future administration 
recommendations on aviation financing, including taxes. Legislative 
mandates of this nature only serve to limit the input of congressional 
committees of jurisdiction and to circumscribe consideration of a 
proposed financing package. I what to thank my colleague, Rules 
Committee Chairman Solomon, who helped us oppose this legislative 
straight jacket for the House.
  I will also note that section 273 of the conference report and 
accompanying statement of managers contains language to clarify the 
method by which the Federal Aviation Administration may establish and 
collect fees on aircraft that overfly the United States but do not take 
off or land here. These clarifications have been included to ensure 
that these overflight fees are true user fees and not new taxes on air 
carriers.
  Specifically, the statement of managers on this section states:

       The user fee imposed on any flight must be based on the 
     FAA's actual cost of service and not on any non-cost based 
     determination of the ``value'' of the service provided. 
     Further, assuming similar costs of serving different carrier 
     and aircraft types, the user fee may not vary based on 
     factors such as aircraft seating capacity or revenues derived 
     from passenger fares.

  Any interpretation of these fees by the FAA to the contrary would be 
a clear violation of congressional intent. Furthermore, the Committee 
on Ways and Means will continue to exercise vigorous oversight on any 
proposed fees which could be viewed as inconsistent with this statement 
of congressional intent or as a delegation of congressional taxing 
authority.
  The lion's share of this bill is the product of enormous work and 
effort by Chairman Shuster and his committee to develop a bipartisan 
agreement for strengthening and improving our Nation's aviation 
programs. The bill before us accomplishes those goals, and it deserves 
the support of the House.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the important accomplishments of this 
bill is that it focuses the FAA exclusively on safety, a matter of 
renewed concern in this country.
  The conference report includes a number of provisions similar to the 
Vice President's Aviation Security and Antiterrorism Commission. These 
include requiring airlines and airports to conduct background checks--
in some cases, criminal background checks--of all personnel who would 
screen passengers, baggage, or cargo; and requires the FAA to certify 
companies that provide security screening, and to develop uniform 
performance standards for the training and testing of security 
screeners.
  While these steps are welcome and needed, they should be considered a 
beginning. The FAA should establish performance milestones that are 
attached to the development of technology. They should conduct a 
classified review of which airports are the safest, and immediately 
take steps to bring other airports up to speed using the safest 
airports as working models. The FAA should be implementing a long-term 
strategy taking into consideration all of the Vice President's 
recommendations, including any followup report that the Commission may 
have in the coming months.
  Although the bill requires the FAA to use existing technology for 
explosives detection even if the technology has not been perfected, the 
FAA gets to decide whether such technology provides a benefit. The FAA 
should accept technology even of minimal benefit. Even if a device can 
only detect explosives or weapons 30 percent of the time, it will 
improve safety.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, in privatizing some airports, the Congress 
and the FAA should consider what this will do to the uniform standards 
that the bill is working to implement. There is a lot of promise in new 
technology: in explosive detection machines to explosion-proof cargo 
holds. These will augment traditional procedures such as well-trained 
staff, bomb-sniffing dogs, x-ray devices, and others. These needs 
provide a clear mandate for Government-sponsored research and 
development of technology.
  All of these efforts should be looked at as milestones toward a 
single goal: that no airport should be less safe than another. We must 
achieve a single standard of high security for American airports; a 
standard that every airport in this country meets at the same level.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
conference report on the FAA Authorization Act (H.R. 3539).
  The legislation before the House contains many vitally important 
provisions to enhance the efficiency and safety of air travel in this 
country. I supported the bill when it passed the House, and I fully 
expected to be able to support the conference report. However, 
regrettably, in the 11th hour, a positively poison pill was added to 
the bill that was not part of either the House or the Senate bill, has 
not been the subject of a single congressional hearing, and represents 
a serious setback for the interests of working people.
  This provision is textbook special-interest legislation added in 
conference to aid a single, powerful company--Federal Express. The 
effect of the provision, which would reinstate an outdated 
classification under the Railway Labor Act, would be to make it much 
more difficult for Federal Express employees to unionize. This is 
precisely the wrong step to take in this time of corporate downsizing 
and financial insecurity. Instead, we must work to safeguard worker 
protections.
  Mr. Speaker, because of this provision, I am forced to oppose an 
otherwise outstanding bill. However, I am confident that this 
objectionable provision will ultimately be deleted and the FAA 
legislation passed before the 104th Congress adjourns.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 3539. This legislation includes a blatant effort to 
deny workers the right to form and join unions. While I support other 
provisions of the bill, I will not vote for this legislation so long as 
it includes the express carrier provision.
  The express carrier provision was not a part of this legislation as 
passed by either the House or the Senate. Rather it is a wholly 
extraneous provision that was inserted into the conference report at 
the behest of a single company. The sole purpose of the provision is to 
deny employees of that company any realistic means of being able to 
form a union and bargain on their own behalf.
  This is a measure of the lengths antiunion Members of Congress will 
go on behalf of the rich and powerful to undermine the rights of 
ordinary citizens.
  The express carrier provision is intended to accomplish a single 
end--to ensure that employees will not be protected by the National 
Labor Relations Act, but by the weaker protections of the Railway Labor 
Act instead. If this transfer of jurisdiction is accomplished, 
employees would be required to organize on a national basis before they 
would be able to exercise any voice in the determination of their wages 
and working conditions. In effect, the express carrier provision is 
intended to make it impossible for employees to engage in collective 
bargaining.
  That some are willing to jeopardize passage of the Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act in order to deny workers the ability to have a 
voice in their working conditions demonstrates once again the 
antiworker animus of this Congress. I urge Members to defeat the 
conference report.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly rise to report that the 
House Commerce Committee does not agree with provisions contained in 
section 406 of H.R. 3539 which affect the promulgation of aircraft 
emission standards.
  These provisions were added in the other body and adopted in 
conference with some modification to reflect the fact that aircraft 
emission standards are established under the authority of the Clean Air 
Act. However, the Commerce Committee did not assent to the inclusion of 
these provisions in the conference agreement and was not allowed an 
opportunity to make changes to the legislative language of this 
conference report.
  The Commerce Committee has an undisputed jurisdictional interest in 
section 406. In essence, this section amends the Clean Air Act to alter 
the current provisions under which aircraft emission standards may be 
set. Section 406 creates a new legislative hurdle to changing any 
existing regulation requiring the consideration of factors unrelated to 
health or environmental protection.
  To be sure, these new factors are not unreasonable considerations. 
The new language bars changing existing standards if such change would 
significantly increase noise and adversely affect safety. But now is 
not the time--in this bill--to advance new legislative standards for 
aircraft engines. Present statutory authority has stood--unamended--for 
nearly 20 years. Such standards should not be altered in an unrelated 
bill.
  I recognize the long labors of my colleagues to bring this bill to 
the House floor. I know that members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and other House committees which were allowed 
to be part of the conference have labored long and hard to produce a 
good bill. But I repeat--section 406 in its present form should not be 
part of this legislation.
  I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address the House on this 
most important legislation and this most important concern of the 
Commerce Committee.

[[Page H11465]]

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3539, the 
Federal Aviation Authorization [FAA] Act of 1996. I would like to thank 
Chairman Walker and the Technology Subcommittee ranking member, 
Congressman John Tanner for their work in crafting title XI of the H.R. 
3539.
  Title XI is the FAA Research, Engineering, and Development [RD&E] 
Management Reform Act of 1996. I originally introduced the RD&E Act on 
May 16, 1996. Its major provisions were subsequently incorporated into 
H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996 which 
passed the House on May 30, 1996.
  The language in title XI is taken from H.R. 3322. It has been 
modified slightly to increase the authorization for aviation security 
research by just over $21 million. This increase should allow the FAA 
to step up its efforts to develop effective antiterrorism technologies 
for U.S. airports.
  In total, title XI authorizes $208 million for FAA research and 
development activities in fiscal year 1997--an increase of $21 million 
over the fiscal year 1996 appropriated level. The title further directs 
the FAA research advisory committee to annually review the FAA research 
and development funding allocations and requires the Administrator of 
the FAA to consider the advisory committee's advice in establishing its 
annual funding priorities. Finally, title XI streamlines the 
requirements of the national aviation research plans and shortens the 
timeframe the plans must cover from 15 to 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, title XI strengthens an already good bill, and I would 
like to thank Transportation Committee Chairman Shuster and Aviation 
Subcommittee Chairman Duncan along with full Committee Ranking Member 
Oberstar and Subcommittee Ranking Member Lipinski for their support and 
assistance in including the FAA RD&E Act in H.R. 3539.
  Also included in H.R. 3539 are provisions to restore the operating 
authority of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority [MWAA]. 
MWAA, which oversees operations at National and Dulles Airports, has 
been functioning with limited powers under a court order for more than 
1 year.
  I firmly believe that the only flaw in the original legislation 
creating the airport authority is the unconstitutionality of the 
congressional board of review. I maintain that the best remedy would be 
to amend this legislation by eliminating the congressional review 
board.
  However, I recognize that there is a strong interest to preserve the 
federal interest, and I have expressed my willingness to accept the 
compromise provisions included in this conference report. Two 
additional Federal appointments to the MWAA board of directors surely 
would ensure that the two airports remain attentive to Federal 
concerns.
  I am pleased that the provisions protect the high density rule at 
Washington National Airport. Any change in the hourly limits would 
impose serious social and economic consequences on Maryland and the 
entire metropolitan Washington region. The primary safety and economic 
concerns, as well as the impact of noise generated by additional 
flights on the airport's neighbors, make the high density rule 
imperative for this heavily traveled metropolitan airport.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote to suspend the rules and pass 
H.R. 3539.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 198, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               YEAS--218

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Canady
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boucher
     Chapman
     Collins (MI)
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Frisa
     Frost
     Green (TX)
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Obey
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Rose
     Solomon
     Thompson

                              {time}  1418

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quillen for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas against.

  Messrs. BARR of Georgia, STUPAK, ROYCE, WATT of North Carolina, and 
Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H11466]]

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________