[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.
____________________