Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H389-H398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SHORT-TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1999

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 31 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 31

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
extend Federal Aviation Administration programs through
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
4(a) of rule XIII or section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. After general debate, the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional
Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Each section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. Points of order against the
amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or
section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), my very good friend, and say I am very happy to see him
here, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will
be for debate purposes only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me first begin here by commending both
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules, for their cooperation in making this first rule of
the 106th Congress an open rule that will permit consideration of an
important piece of legislation.
Specifically, this resolution makes in order H.R. 99, providing for
the temporary extension of Federal Aviation Administration programs
under, as I said, an open rule providing for one hour of general
debate.
The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. The rule also
contains several waivers that are necessary for the bill to be
considered today.
The waivers of sections 302(f) and 303(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act are necessary because Congress did not adopt the fiscal year 1999
budget resolution and, pursuant to House Resolution 5, fiscal year 1999
budget allocations have not been published in the Congressional Record.
Also, the waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI is necessary because Title
II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute was not part of the
introduced bill. Title II is language for the Committee on Ways and
Means that allows expenditures from the Aviation Trust Fund.
Finally, the waiver of clause 4(a) of rule XIII is needed because the
report on H.R. 99 was not filed by the Committee of Transportation and
Infrastructure until yesterday.
Members who preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their
consideration will be given priority and recognition. The Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole is authorized to postpone votes during
consideration of the bill and reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed
question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a very comprehensive FAA
reauthorization bill, but there was not enough time to work through a
conference with the other body. As a result, the omnibus appropriations
bill passed last year contained only a 6-month extension of the FAA's
Airport Improvement Program. That short-term extension expires on March
31 of this year.
In order to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the full House time to develop a comprehensive FAA reauthorization
bill this year, we need to extend the 6-month short-term authorization
through the rest of this fiscal year. Without passage of H.R. 99, no
new Airport Improvement Program grants can be issued after March 31.
AIP grants fund a variety of airport safety and capacity-enhancing
projects such as runway extensions, taxiway construction, and noise
abatement projects. As more and more people fly every day, it is
important to maintain the highest safety standards at our Nation's
airports.
I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster)
plans to bring to the House a comprehensive aviation reform bill later
this year that will address many very important and complex issues.
Those issues may range from whether to increase the number of airport
slots at busy airports, to what kind of passenger protection provisions
should be included, to how the Aviation Trust Fund should be handled.
These complex issues cannot be fully addressed before the current AIP
reauthorization expires. Passage of H.R. 99 provides Congress with
enough time to produce a comprehensive aviation reform bill.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this very
fair, balanced, and open rule and also the bipartisan FAA
reauthorization legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H390]]

Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my dear
friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Madam Speaker, I want to publicly congratulate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), my chairman, my dear friend, for bringing this
totally open rule to the floor. May every one of his rules be as open
as this, Madam Speaker. It is a great, great start.
Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a bill to improve our
airports. Unfortunately, the Senate did not pass a similar bill. If we
do not pass this bill, the Federal Aviation Administration will not be
able to issue grants after March 31 of this year.
That will mean, Madam Speaker, that the much-needed airport
construction that is already under way will have to stop, and the new
expansion and improvement of programs will just not get off the ground.
Madam Speaker, according to the Air Transport Association, the United
States had 605 million airline passengers in 1997. In 1998 we had about
2 million passengers a day. In the next 10 years, Madam Speaker, that
number is expected to increase to 1 billion people flying in and out of
our airports each year.
The airline delays in this country's 18,000 airports cost the airline
industry about $2.5 billion each and every year. Most of that ends up
as ticket costs for consumers.
In 1997 the U.S. airlines placed orders and options for orders for
nearly 1,400 new aircraft. That is a lot more planes and a lot more
congestion. It is estimated that it will cost about $8 billion a year
to pay for our airport development needs caused in part by these new
planes.

{time} 1115

Madam Speaker, many of our airports are just not equipped to handle
the growing crowds. As anyone who has faced a late airplane or an
overcrowded airport can tell us, our airports need work. They need a
lot of work.
We need to get our airport safety systems up to date. We need to make
our airports bigger. We need to update our traffic control systems.
This bill will make all that happen.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues tell me that the House will take up the
regular FAA improvement bill later this year, but we need to pass this
temporary bill today in order to make sure construction proceeds in the
interim. Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we will miss the construction season
and delay these long overdue improvements even further.
Madam Speaker, there is very little opposition to this bill. It was
reported out of committee by a voice vote.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very open
rule and the accompanying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very energetic, hardworking and
peripatetic chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who is eager to
address this issue.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the powerful chairman of
the powerful Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I will
limit my gratitude until I look up the word ``peripatetic.'' I may or
may not amplify that. In any event, it is a pleasure to be here with
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who is a longtime friend
and a great legislator, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski)
who is also a longtime friend and a great legislator.
Madam Speaker, I speak in support of H.R. 99, a bill to extend the
authorization for certain Federal Aviation Administration programs for
6 months, through September 30, 1999. However, I want to stress my
support for H.R. 99 extends only to the bill as currently drafted.
My concern is that if H.R. 99 passes the House, it might become a
vehicle to go to conference on a much broader bill from the other body.
If that were to happen, many important aviation issues, including the
addition of slots to the four slot-controlled airports, might come back
in a conference report without any opportunity for House amendments. I
have raised this concern with the Speaker, the majority leader and the
majority whip. It is my understanding they will not allow H.R. 99 to
become a vehicle for such a broader conference. With that
understanding, I am certainly willing to support H.R. 99 so that the
FAA's authorization will not expire at the end of March. Let me
conclude by saying that I appreciate the cooperation of each of our
three leaders in clarifying this matter so this important legislation
can move forward.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I urge support of this rule.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 31
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 99.

{time} 1119

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal
Aviation Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for
other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. It is a
very simple bill which extends the Airport Improvement Program because
it was reauthorized for only 6 months last year. As a result, the FAA's
Airport Improvement Program funding is set to expire on March 31. If
that were to happen, there would be no funds available for very, very
important airport safety and capacity improvement projects, such as
runway extensions and taxiway constructions. Already aviation delays
cost the industry billions of dollars. In fact, in 1997 delays cost the
carriers $2.4 billion which, of course, gets translated into costs that
are imposed ultimately upon the traveling public and the aviation
passengers. So it is very important that this legislation, this simple
extension, be passed.
We indeed do intend to bring to the floor major legislation later in
the year. That is not what we have here today. All we have here today
is a simple extension. I would point out that the AIP contract
authority authorized by this legislation is fully consistent with the
CBO baseline for this program as well as the 6-month contract authority
established in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. I would
strongly urge support for this important legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging swift passage
of H.R. 99, and I want to compliment him for making this the top issue
of the committee's agenda in this Congress. He rightly saw at the
conclusion of the 105th Congress that, as we dealt so masterfully under
his gifted and vigorous leadership with the surface transportation
needs of this country, that our next focus had to be the Nation's
airways and airports. This simple 6-month extension is, in a sense, a
down payment on the committee's commitment at the end of the last
session and the beginning of this to address vigorously and in a broad,
visionary concept the Nation's aviation requirements.
I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for

[[Page H391]]

the leadership and vigor they have put forth in bringing this bill to
the floor and on the preparation that has gone into the subsequent
legislation that we will consider. While the number 99 is rather
fortuitous, just quite by accident the bill carries the number H.R. 99,
it is symbolic, and it is, I think, a wonderful gesture that the very
first aviation bill we bring to the floor carries the name of the
oldest organization of women aviators, the 99s, formed in the late
1920s.
In bringing this bill to the floor, we in this, I think, very special
way pay a tribute to women who have contributed so much to the growth
of aviation and development of aviation in this country and perhaps
suggest to the commercial airlines of the United States that they make
as much room in the flight deck for women as general aviation has made
room for women in that sector. Perhaps with this bill we can use the
encouragement of the committee to advance the cause of careers for
women in aviation.
At the close of the last session, it was a disappointment to our
committee that we were not able to reach an agreement with the other
body on a long-term reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program
and all other aspects of aviation. We had hoped to reach an agreement,
but numerous obstacles, including the one cited by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) just moments ago during consideration of the rule
proved to be problems. So we bring to the House floor a very simple 6-
month extension. But, as I said, it is a downpayment. It ensures, and I
urge the other body to act quickly on this legislation, it ensures that
after March 31 with signature of this bill into law, the funding for
the FAA airport improvement grant program will be able to continue,
that the investment plans of the Nation's airports will carry forward.
I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Illinois and
I share this concern representing northern tier States. If we do not
provide for the continued funding of the AIP program, surely contracts
will be slowed down, airport projects in northern tier States will be
slowed down. We cannot afford that. We have a very limited construction
season. We need these projects to move ahead as quickly as possible.
That is why this legislation is so vitally important.
Furthermore, I think we have to look at the broader picture of
aviation and the significant impact of aviation on our national
economy. It represents a $600 billion sector of our $7 trillion
domestic economy. That is about 8 percent of our domestic economy that
is driven directly by aviation. We can get multiples if we took
secondary impacts. There are 1.5 million jobs just in the United States
alone with a $100 billion payroll. But worldwide, the impact of air
transport is in the range of $1.5 trillion. That is growing at a rate
of 6 and 7 percent a year in international trade and passengers and
cargo. Those economic gains, though, will be slowed down and the
potential of aviation economic contribution to the domestic and
international economy will be slowed down if we do not have the vision
to pass this legislation and the broader bill that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and the committee will bring to the floor in the next few
months.
Congestion and weather are the two biggest enemies of efficient air
travel. Weather is a factor in over half of the congestion cases that
we experience in the course of a year. But inadequate infrastructure is
the other contributing factor. Often these two issues converge. If we
take an airport like Newark that has only a 950-foot separation between
its two main runways, in worst weather conditions they can operate only
one runway. If they had full separation of the required minimum mile
between the two runways, even in the worst weather conditions they
could operate both runways to the maximum possible permitted by their
combination of air traffic control equipment and the ability to keep
runway surfaces clear in snow and other conditions, icy conditions. But
with runways that close together, they have to shut down one of them in
worst weather conditions.
There are many other airports across this country that face the same
problem. As we extend runways and widen the separation between runways,
build more hard air side capacity, we increase the ability of our
airports to serve the needs of airlines and air travelers.
In 1987, a year in which I chaired the oversight committee and held
hearings on aviation capacity, the FAA estimated to our committee that
there were 21 airports with delays of 20,000 hours a year and more. By
10 years later, within a decade, there were 27 such airports with 20 to
50,000 hours of delay a year. What does that mean to the airlines and
to air travelers? Well, Delta Airlines cited traffic inefficiencies
costing that carrier $360 million a year.

{time} 1130

It adds up to several billions of dollars of cost to the airlines and
to air travelers when they cannot reach their destinations in time or
they get there and the gates are crowded, the aircraft cannot park at
the gate. We have to respond to that situation.
The National Civil Aviation Review Commission found that, quote,
although 19 out of 20 of the busiest airports in the world are in the
United States, this Nation can no longer claim that it has the world's
most modern air traffic control system.
The second aspect of aviation is the technology to increase capacity
and make carrier movements more efficient. This legislation continues
funding of the air traffic control technology side of aviation to
improve capacity at the Nation's airports.
The hard fact is, though, that we are not meeting the on-the-ground
requirements of runway extension, runway addition, taxiways and gate
capacity at our Nation's airports.
According to GAO, even with the AIP funds included in this bill we
are falling short of the airport capacity capital requirements of this
country by as much as $3 billion a year. That is why we need to pass
this bill now, give ourselves a little time to craft larger, broader
legislation that will deal over the next decade with the capacity
requirements of our Nation's airports and air travelers.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Aviation.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, for yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, last year, as has been pointed out by some of the
previous speakers, a comprehensive FAA reauthorization package, H.R.
4057, passed the House and a companion bill was passed in the Senate.
Unfortunately, conference negotiations broke down and only a short-
term six-month extension for the airport improvement program was passed
as part of the omnibus appropriations bill.
This bill, H.R. 99, would extend the FAA's airport improvement
program and fund the FAA's operations and facilities equipment programs
through the end of fiscal year 1999. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) has already explained the great importance of these programs,
especially at a time of such rapid growth in both commercial passenger
traffic and air cargo traffic.
Last year, we carried for the first time in history with not a single
fatality, a single commercial air fatality, 615 million passengers.
This year, that figure is scheduled to go up to 660 million and, as the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pointed out, to over a
billion at some point in the very near future, certainly within the
next decade.
With the passage of this bill, $10.3 billion for the FAA's program
would be authorized for 1999. Also at the request of the House
Committee on Ways and Means, we have added a provision to extend the
general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. We
are also planning to introduce a long-term comprehensive
reauthorization bill, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
has pointed out, in conjunction with our attempt to take the trust fund
off budget in H.R. 111.
In the comprehensive bill, we will attempt to take care of many of
the requests we receive each year from Members concerning airport and
aviation

[[Page H392]]

needs. However, since AIP funding will expire as of March 31st, it is
very important to pass H.R. 99 to extend this funding at least through
the end of year, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINKSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for yielding
this time to me.
Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to say that I am sure that this
year will be very interesting, very exciting and very productive for
aviation in this Nation. I am sure behind the leadership of the
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), that we will solve all the
problems of aviation in this Nation and probably solve a few of them
that extend beyond our boundaries.
Getting down to the specific legislation, which I rise in strong
support of, H.R. 99, the AIP program is vital to airports of all sizes
throughout the Nation. The AIP program provides grants to fund needed
safety, security, capacity, in noise projects. Without H.R. 99,
important airport projects will be disrupted and delayed.
For example, Midway Airport, which is located in my Congressional
district, and which I consider to be the number one airport in all of
Chicagoland, is beginning a multiyear, $722 million terminal
development program, $138 million of which will be provided by the
FAA's AIP program.
If the AIP program expires, Midway Airport will have to rely on other
sources such as the PFC and rates and charges to fund the current phase
of the terminal project which, more than likely, will increase costs
for the future users of the terminal. In addition, the City of
Chicago's Department of Aviation relies on the AIP program to fund
noise mitigation projects. If the AIP program expires, schools around
both O'Hare Airport and Midway Airport will have to wait another full
year for badly needed sound insulation.
H.R. 99 is also needed to ensure that the AIP program receives the
full $1.95 billion provided by the Omnibus Appropriation Act for fiscal
year 1999. The omnibus bill provided $1.95 billion for the AIP program
for fiscal year 1999. However, it also limited the amount of the AIP
program that could actually be spent before March 31, 1999, to $975
million. The AIP program will be entitled to the full appropriated
amount of $1.95 billion only if H.R. 99 is passed and the AIP program
is authorized through the end of the fiscal year.
With the capital needs of airports estimated to be about $10 billion
per year, we cannot afford to cut funding for the AIP program in half.
If we do not pass H.R. 99, we will, in effect, cut funding for the AIP
program in half for fiscal 1999.
Consequently, once again I rise in strong support along with the
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) on behalf of H.R. 99.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I insert for the Record the
correspondence between the House Committee on Ways and Means and the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure regarding title II
of the bill:

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, January 28, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Bud: I understand that on Thursday, January 6, 1999,
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved
H.R. 99, a bill providing for a 6-month extension of Federal
Aviation Administration programs.
As you know, the Trust Fund Code includes specific
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways
and Means which govern trust fund expenditure authority and
which limit purposes for which trust fund moneys may be
spent. Statutorily, the Committee on Ways and Means generally
has limited expenditures by cross-referencing provisions of
authorizing legislation. Currently, the Trust Fund Code
provisions allow expenditures from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund before October 1, 1998. Similarly, the Trust Fund
Code approves all expenditures from the Airport and Airway
trust fund permitted under previously enacted authorization
Acts, most recently the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act
of 1996, as in effect on the date of enactment of the 1996
Act.
I now understand that you are seeking to have H.R. 99
considered by the House as early as the first week in
February. In addition, I have been informed that your
Committee will seek a Manager's or Committee amendment to the
bill which will include language I am supplying (attached) to
address the necessary trust fund provisions. The amendment
would extend until October 1, 1999, the general expenditure
authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update
the expenditure purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide
that, generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue
Code.
Based on this understanding, and in order to expedite
consideration of this legislation, it will not be necessary
for the Committee on Ways and Means to markup this
legislation. This is being done with the further
understanding that the Committee will be treated without
prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives on such or
similar provisions in the future, and it should not be
considered as precedent for consideration of matters of
jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means in
the future.
Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter,
confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 99, and
would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this
matter be placed in the Record during consideration of the
bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation and
assistance on this matter. With best personal regards.
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE
AUTHORITY

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from
Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
(1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October
1, 1999'', and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the
Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of
1999''.
(b) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Section 9502 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Limitation on Transfers to Trust Fund.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted
by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure
is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or
referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently
enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive
the application of this subsection.
``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall
not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract
entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before
October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this
section.''.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1999.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill, Thank you for your recent letter regarding the
bill, H.R. 99, providing for an extension of programs of the
Federal Aviation Administration through the end of Fiscal
Year 1999. You are correct that we are drafting a Manager's
amendment for the House Floor debate. I appreciate your
willingness to have us include in this amendment the
necessary changes to the Trust Fund Code which governs trust
fund expenditure authority. The amendment would extend until
October 1, 1999, the general expenditure authority for the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update the expenditure
purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide that,
generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue Code.
Attached is the amendment we plan to offer on the House
Floor.
To accelerate the consideration of H.R. 99 on the House
Floor, I appreciate your willingness to forego marking up
this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee. Of course,
I understand that your action under these circumstances
should not affect the Ways and Means Committee's
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar provisions in
the future.

[[Page H393]]

As you requested, I will be including a copy of your
letter, and my reply in the Record during consideration of
the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation on this
matter.
With warm regards, I remain
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
____

Amendment to H.R. 99, as Reported,

Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program
Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
TITLE I--EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking
``$1,205,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at
the end and inserting the following: ``$2,410,000,000 for
fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
(b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended by
striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30,
1999''.

SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--
Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting the following:
``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--
Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Fiscal Years
1994-1998'' and inserting ``Fiscal Years 1994-2000''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
(c) Limitation on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--Section
48108(c) of such title is amended by striking ``1998'' and
inserting ``2000''.

SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.

Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (g); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE
AUTHORITY

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, this bill is absolutely essential. The
first portion, to extend the AIP program, is extremely important to
local airports which are in the midst of planning and construction
cycles. Since the current authorization expires in less than 60 days,
if we do not pass this bill, these airports will be at a loss as to
what to do and how to proceed. Airports have received only half of
their normal grant money for this year, and if we do not pass this
bill, they will not receive the remainder. Furthermore, since airport
construction projects are unique and long-term, this shortfall will
create serious problems for airport planners who have to schedule these
projects in phases.
Beyond that, this bill gives us time to begin a larger debate about
making sure that America's airport infrastructure and aviation systems
are the best in the world. At this point, although I believe they are
very good, they are slipping compared to the rest of the world. The
debate about airport funding, safety, security and the aviation
industry as a whole needs to start with this legislation.
Let me speak about one area in particular that I am acquainted with,
and that is acquiring computers and planning the software and hardware
for the new air traffic control system. In a very interesting study
several years ago, then-Senator Cohen, who is currently Secretary of
Defense, came to the startling realization that the present procurement
policies for the Federal Government absolutely guarantee that every
computer the Federal Government will buy is obsolete at the time it is
purchased.
Now how is this possible? Because in the time it takes to go through
the specifications procedure, the actual procurement and purchase
procedure and follow all the required Federal guidelines, roughly two
years will have elapsed--more likely three years. As everyone knows,
according to Moore's law, computer speed doubles every 18 months, and
it is generally acknowledged that after three years computers have lost
their usefulness in the industrial realm. Although people may continue
to use them longer, they are no longer optimizing their investment, and
if it takes us three years to decide which computer to buy and then buy
it, we are always buying obsolete computers.
We have tried to correct that in the case of the FAA a few years back
by giving them more leeway in the procurement process, but it is still
not enough. What FAA has done to try to get around this is to keep
changing the specifications as they go along to ensure that they will
have up-to-date computers and will have the advanced software needed to
manage the new air traffic control system, the so-called free-flight
system. It is not working very well, it is not working very
efficiently, and I do not blame the FAA for this; I blame the
requirements that are imposed on this agency, being subject to the
requirements that all Federal agencies have to meet.
But we are struggling here with a situation where this is a rapidly
evolving field, the airlines are progressing very rapidly, the air
traffic control system must evolve as rapidly, and we must develop the
best hardware and the best software to handle the complex air traffic
control system of the future. We cannot do that under the current
authorization, and I hope when we complete the extension of
reauthorizing the FAA in this bill, that then we will have a good bill
ready that will allow us to address all these handicaps, that will
allow us to develop an air traffic control system and an FAA that is
second to none in the world, that will indeed match the performance of
our airlines and will match the performance that we expect from any
agency that is regulating various industries. Then we will be a help
and not a hindrance to the airline industry.
Once again I want everyone to understand clearly I am not castigating
the current FAA administrator. She is doing a marvelous job. I am not
castigating her staff. I am simply saying that we have to change the
rules of the game and give them the flexibility they need. We made a
great step a few years ago. We have to go further, and I hope, as we
rewrite this bill, we will be able to do that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from the State of my birth,
Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is making a very
important statement, and I hope that Members are paying careful
attention to the observations of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) about the complexities of contracting in the FAA for the
requirements of our air traffic control system.

[[Page H394]]

It is an issue that our former colleague, Mr. Clinger, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for many years, and with the
gentleman's help, bringing his able scientific physics background to
bear on this issue of keeping ahead of the technology, and impeded as
we were, as the FAA is, by ancient contracting rules that were devised
during the Civil War era for buying mules for the U.S. Army, still in
place for acquiring air traffic control computer equipment. As the
gentleman has observed, we need to simplify that process. Let us bend
every effort as we proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)
has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

{time} 1145

We will do this as we proceed with the broader authorization bill to
make every effort to address that issue and to help the FAA complete
its task of modernization of the air traffic control system. I thank
the gentleman for raising this very important subject.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman, and would agree that computers change much more rapidly than
mules. We must make sure that we have a top-flight system in operation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for
yielding me this time. I am not a member of the committee, but I have
been long supportive of the work of the Republican and Democratic
leaders of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in
assuring a sound transportation infrastructure for our Nation. It is
vital, not only to our Nation's present quality of life, but to the
quality of life for our children.
I rise today in support of H.R. 99, but I would like to spend my
moments here, if I might, talking about aircraft noise.
Aircraft engines make a lot of noise. They are loud, droning, and, in
some cases, unbearable to be near. People living in major metropolitan
areas where there are often several airports nearby have to live with
this oppressive aircraft noise. It has an extremely negative impact on
the quality of their lives and on their health.
In an attempt to address this problem, the Airport Noise and Capacity
Act of 1990 was enacted. This law requires jet aircraft to be equipped
with newer technology, quieter Stage 3 engines by December 31, 1999. It
ends the operation of the older, noisier, Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft
engines.
As a result of that law, major commercial airliners have already
phased out most of their Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft. But,
unfortunately, the law exempted aircraft weighing less than 75,000
pounds.
Planes weighing less than 75,000 pounds are typically general
aviation aircraft. However, even though these general aviation aircraft
are smaller than commercial airliners, in most cases they are louder
than commercial airliners, because most of them are still equipped with
the Stage 2 or Stage 1 engines.
Therefore, air noise problems in our most densely populated areas in
the United States will not go away unless we have an across-the-board
elimination of Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft engines, including engines
of all general aviation aircraft.
Let me give you an example. At Teterboro Airport, in New Jersey, in
my district, Teterboro Airport has roughly 15 percent of the aircraft
using Teterboro with the Stage 1 or Stage 2 aircraft, only 15 percent,
but that 15 percent of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft account for 90
percent, 90 percent, of all the aircraft noise violations at the
airport.
So, the solution: I am introducing the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act
of 1999, which will close this loophole and prohibit the operation of
all older, louder, Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft engines in the 20
largest metropolitan areas with the worst air-noise problems.
In heavy aircraft traffic areas, like New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco,
Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Seattle,
Cleveland, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and
Denver, the residents surrounding these airports are being continuously
pounded with aircraft noise and they are demanding action. They need
relief from aircraft noise now, and we must give them that relief now.
This legislation achieves a balance, the need for the aircraft noise
relief for these residents living in our Nation's most congested areas,
with the legitimate economic needs of small aircraft operators who need
to land in smaller airports away from our Nation's largest cities.
I am hopeful that the leaders of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation will work with me to
see that this legislation is included in the FAA's reauthorization
bill.
I hope my colleagues will work with me to help provide aircraft noise
relief, not only to my constituents, but to the millions of Americans
all across this country who presently suffer from aircraft noise.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield one minute to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99, the FAA Short
Term Extension Act. I wish to congratulate the full committee chairman,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, the Subcommittee on
Aviation chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) in drafting this together on a bipartisan
basis.
This bill is extremely important to Ontario International Airport,
located in my district. H.R. 99 reauthorizes funding for the Airport
Improvement Program through September 31, 1999, and makes several minor
changes to FAA programs. Specifically, the measure authorizes $2.3
billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $7.8 billion for FAA
operations, facilities and equipment.
The bill includes funding for airport improvements, air traffic
control facilities and equipment, and the salaries and expenses of
operating the FAA.
Finally, H.R. 99 includes funds for new radars, computers and
navigation equipment that are needed to modernize the air traffic
control system and ensure that air travel remains safe.
I ask my colleagues to pass this bill with their strong support.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Brown), a very valuable member of our committee.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee
on Aviation, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill
and to work with us to make this, what we are calling on the committee,
the year of aviation. Last year was one of the safest years in American
aviation history and I think that this administration, as well as this
Congress, should be commended for taking part in this.
We have a lot of work to do this year, not only to maintain our
safety record, but also in preparing our aviation system for the
challenges of the 21st Century.
In my home state of Florida, aviation is a key part of our economy,
which is heavily based on trade and tourism. In the next decade, Miami
will handle 35 million passengers, Orlando 30 million, and Jacksonville
will continue to be a key intermodal location for aviation, rail and
shipping traffic. The grants and programs authorized in this bill,
including the airport improvement programs, are critical for the health
and safety of aviation in this country.
In addition to supporting this extension, I also support using
aviation trust fund dollars for aviation purposes, and I look forward
to making this the year of aviation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Chairman, I rise to commend the Members of the Committee on

[[Page H395]]

Transportation and Infrastructure, especially the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Chairman Duncan), and the ranking subcommittee member, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and to express my appreciation
and support for H.R. 99.
My appreciation is enhanced, especially because there are no
controversial provisions in this bill to add flights to our Nation's
high density airports. There are no provisions to change the perimeter
rule at Reagan National Airport. This legislation merely extends
funding for the programs under the auspices of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including the Airport Improvement Program.
In the Washington area, air service is extremely competitive.
Consumers have a choice between three fine airports, and no one airline
dominates air service in Washington, as is the case in many major
cities.
This high level of competition exists in large part because of the
slot and perimeter rules that are in effect at Reagan National Airport.
Because of the slot and perimeter rules, the Washington area enjoys
twice as many daily flights available from domestic destinations and a
wider competitive choice than almost any other area in the country.
Changes in these rules would destroy the environmental and economic
balance that exists among Reagan National Airport, Washington Dulles,
and Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
The vote and perimeter rules were part of the good faith agreement
among Federal, local and airport officials which promoted passage of
the 1986 legislation that transferred control of National and Dulles
from the FAA to a local authority, MWAA. The provisions have the effect
of abating noise, and any changes would have a negative impact on the
airport's neighbors in Maryland and Virginia.
Madam Chairman, the slot and perimeter rules are essential to the
balance of service to the greater Metropolitan Washington region. I am
grateful that H.R. 99 does not make any change to these essential
flight limitations.
I urge a yes vote on this important legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of the
measure before us today. While I support the goal of the legislation
and compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for
their good work in moving expeditiously on this important authorization
extension, I fear this measure will undergo substantial and dangerous
changes in the other body or during conference.
Madam Chairman, I object to efforts to increase takeoff off and
landing slots at existing high density airports, such as La Guardia in
my district. As such, I strongly oppose any efforts to add language
that would accomplish this goal.
As my colleagues may know, it is an open secret that legislation to
increase takeoffs and landings at the Nation's four high density
airports will likely be accepted in any conference on the FAA short
term extension.
I would strongly encourage the chairman and ranking member not to go
outside of the normal legislative process by adding in conference any
legislation or proposals that would increase takeoffs and landings at
the four high density airports. This is an issue which deserves to be
considered separately on its own merits in a full and open debate.
Madam Chairman, increased competition in the airline industry,
reduction of fares and expansion of the market to allow small, low fare
airlines to compete with larger carriers are all worthy goals that
deserve to be fully reviewed. And while I am not opposed to taking
steps to increase competition in the airline industry, I cannot support
efforts which would do so at the expense of the quality of life of my
constituents and others who live and work near high density airports.
My Queens constituency, flanked to the north by La Guardia Airport
and to the south by JFK International Airport, live under the most
heavily-utilized section of air space in the world. How can this
Congress in all good conscience mandate substantial increases in this
already heavily burdened area?
Madam Chairman, while my constituents are primarily concerned about
the excessive aircraft noise and associated ground traffic at La
Guardia that they must deal with each and every day, morning, noon and
night, they are also concerned about their safety and that of the
traveling public. And in light of a number of near collisions at La
Guardia Airport within the past year, it would seem that those concerns
are not unwarranted.
Madam Chairman, for Congress to act at this time to mandate the
allocation of even more slots at La Guardia and other high density
airports would be, I believe, unconscionable. At the very least, the
committee should have a full and thorough debate on this issue prior to
acting on legislation to increase takeoffs and landings at these
airports.

{time} 1200

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from New York and our
colleague from Illinois who addressed this matter previously during
consideration of the rule.
We confronted this issue of slots in the 105th Congress, and we have
had extensive discussion about this subject matter, and it is far more
complex than appears on its face. The gentleman is right to express his
concern that this issue should not be addressed in the context of this
short-term extension. I would be vigorously opposed to any attempt to
address the matter in the context of this bill, and I hope the
gentleman will support the legislation with that understanding.
Certainly the issue of slots at the slot-controlled airports deserves
far more extensive consideration than could possibly be given in the
context of a short-term extension bill, and I know that the chairman
shares that concern. We are not about to let this legislation be
sidetracked by an issue of this magnitude, and I urge the gentleman to
support our legislation.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of
legislation extending Federal Aviation Administration programs an
additional six months.
I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for taking quick action
to ensure that Federal Aviation Administration programs, and the
Airport Improvement Program in particular, will not expire at the end
of next month.
I regret, however, that even with enactment of this legislation, two
airports that are entitled to receive more than $20 million in Airport
Improvement Program grants will still be unable to receive these funds.
In fact, more than $200 million in critical construction projects for
National and Dulles Airports, funded in part with passenger facility
charges (PFCs), are being held hostage pending resolution of the
Aviation Competition Act.
At the center of this debate are the rights of one local authority
pitted against some members of Congress who want to direct the
operations of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
I was prepared to offer an amendment to release these funds and grant
approval of the passenger facility charges, but recognize the desire of
the Chairman and Ranking member to pass a ``clean'' FAA reauthorization
bill.
I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns of
the members from this region.
I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to keep the bill ``clean'' in
conference.
I am deeply concerned about provisions in the Senate bill that take
us a step back and bring controversy and invite opposition to this
important legislation.
I am, of course, referring to provisions about to be considered by
the Senate Commerce Committee that would increase the number of flights
to the four slot controlled airports.
In the case of National Airport, the Senate legislation would add an
additional 24 slots to this congested airport and lift the perimeter
rule permitting half of these slots to fly beyond the current 1250 mile
perimeter restriction.
Madam Chairman a change in the perimeter rule would result in a cut
back in locations presently served by National within the perimeter and
adversely affect the development of the Washington region's three
commercial airports.
According to studies based on Washington air travel market data
produced by the Washington Airports Task Force, every city with

[[Page H396]]

flights to National that generates revenues of less than $20 million
would be vulnerable to service reductions.
Over time, short-range service at National would be displaced and the
number of transcontinental flights operating out of Dulles would
decline.
As those transcontinental flights decline, Dulles would cease to
become an attractive destination for international service.
The growth and development plans overseen by Congress and the
substantial investment made at both National and Dulles by the
taxpayers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation
community would become substantially devalued.
Madam Chairman, not a day goes by that someone's quality of life is
not adversely affected by the constant drum of airplanes taking off and
landing at National airport.
For their sake, we should not change the rules they have begrudgingly
come to accept.
The balance that has now been struck between the transportation and
economic needs of air travelers and the region's environmental concerns
was crucial to community acceptance of the redevelopment of National,
now nearing completion.
While these communities understand that National is here to stay,
they should not be asked to endure additional noise when no compelling
public need is served or could be addressed in other ways without
altering the slot and perimeter rules.
Congress agreed in 1986 to cede control of National Airport to a
regional authority who would have ``full power and dominion over, and
complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.''
In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to
accept operational control of the airports and raise the money
necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.
Madam Chairman, the two states, the District and the regions'
residents have upheld their part of the bargain.
It is time for Congress to honor its part.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99,
the short-term extension of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is
critical that we move forward with this bill quickly to ensure that the
airport improvement program will continue to receive funding and grants
to airports will be honored. In this, the Year of Aviation, we have
much to consider and much to accomplish to make our skies even safer
and air traffic more efficient and accessible. This short-term
reauthorization will give this House and the Senate adequate time to
more fully consider longer-term aviation authorization and competition
issues. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I would like to take some
time to talk about some of my concerns regarding H.R. 99, the FAA
reauthorization legislation. I recognize that this bill funds some very
important and critical programs, including operation and maintenance of
the air traffic control system, safety inspections, and other Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) activities. It does an adequate job
ensuring that our airports and airways are safe and efficient.
Madam Chairman, I've had personal experience with the FAA and the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as a community activist, a state
Senator, and now as a Member of Congress. In fact, I grew up about a
mile from the Seattle/Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), so I know
how people are affected by airports first hand.
The Port of Seattle has been attempting to expand SeaTac for more
than nine years. Over those years, I've had several problems with the
way the Port and the FAA have dealt with this proposed expansion
project. I feel they have severely underestimated the environmental
impacts the new runway would have on local communities, including the
potential financial costs of implementation. They have also failed to
adequately evaluate other potential problems, including increased
traffic that would arise from construction and the increased noise
expansion would have on local schools and neighborhoods. Overall, I
strongly believe the FAA and the Port have shown a disregard for the
concerns of the local citizens who will have to bear the brunt of the
negative results of this proposed expansion.
Considering my experience with this program, I believe there are
three things that could have been included in the legislation that
would have made it better for those that live and work around our
countries' airports. First, I have concerns over the current executive
branch dealing with pollution from aircraft. The principle agency in
the federal government that deals with environmental impact is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, when it comes to
pollution resulting from aircraft it is the FAA. This wasn't always the
case. Previously, the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the EPA
was responsible for coordinating federal noise abatement activities,
updating and developing new noise standards, and promoting research and
education on the impacts of noise pollution. This office was eliminated
in 1982. I believed the FAA has a strong disincentive for effectively
handling aircraft pollution because their main function is to expand
and promote aviation. On the other hand, the EPA is in a much better
position to fairly analyze pollution from aircraft and thus effectively
implement policy to deal with these impacts, because its chief
objective is to protect people against dangerous environmental
problems. I feel the bill should have transferred these powers from the
FAA to EPA in order to properly study and better protect citizens in my
district and others from aviation pollution.
Second, I would like to have seen the bill set aside more funds to
directly compensate the public for the damage that it will have on
their lives. A study has determined that the impact that the proposed
3rd runway would have on my constituents is around $4 billion, but the
plan by the Port includes only $50 million in mitigation costs. This is
clearly unfair. The citizens of communities surrounding the airport
would have to bear the brunt of mitigating the environmental problems
surrounding the proposed project, despite having very little input and
decision making authority. I feel that the bill could have authorized
more money for the use of directly compensating individuals impacted by
new construction for areas like my district.

Third, I'm very concerned about the lack of congressional and local
input in the decision making authority for approving FAA discretionary
grants for new airport construction. While I understand the meaning of
a discretionary program is that the federal agency has the discretion
in determining whether to appropriate the funds, I believe the current
system so substantially displaces legislative input that it trumps the
spirit of the separation of powers of our three branches of government,
which is a critical part of our representative democracy. The Port of
Seattle and the FAA negotiated a Record of Decision in July of 1997,
despite serious objections from myself and my constituents. Our system
is designed to have Members of Congress represent the concerns and
interests of their home districts and thus executive decisions that
impact a certain group of people should only be done with the
consideration of the opinions of the Member who represents those
people. I do not feel that my concerns have adequately been taken into
consideration during this process, and I feel this is wrong.
Overall, I feel that the concerns of local citizens and thus Members
of Congress who represent them are not sufficiently taken into
consideration under the AIP, and will continue to advocate for changes
to this program in the future. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered by sections as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Pursuant to the rule,
each section is considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program
Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 101.
The text of section 101 is as follows:

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

[[Page H397]]

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 101?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 102.
The text of section 102 is as follows:

SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 102?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 103.
The text of section 103 is as follows:

SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--
Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting the following:
``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--
Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Fiscal Years
1994-1998'' and inserting ``Fiscal Years 1994-2000''; and
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
(c) Limitations on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--
Section 48108(c) of such title is amended by striking
``1998'' and inserting ``2000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 103?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 104.
The text of section 104 is as follows:

SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.

Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (g); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 104?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 201.
The text of section 201 is as follows:

TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE
AUTHORITY

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 201?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 99) to
amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation
Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 31, she reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHUSTER. 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.
This vote will be followed by two 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408,
nays 3, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 9]

YEAS--408

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo

[[Page H398]]

Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--3

Obey
Paul
Smith (WA)

NOT VOTING--22

Cooksey
Delahunt
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Hall (OH)
Kasich
Lantos
Largent
Livingston
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Rogan
Rush
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Spence
Wilson

{time} 1223

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was unavoidably detained for
rollcall vote 9. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 99,
the Federal Aviation Administration Short-Term Extension, I would have
voted ``aye.''

____________________