Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 29 (Wednesday, March 15, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1002-H1030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 438

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1000) 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and
granted a standard rule for consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century. As is customary for all conference report
rules, the rule waives all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote, ``For my part, I
travel not to go anywhere but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The
great affair is to move.''
This Nation's proud history is filled with the deeds and adventures
of great explorers and brave pioneers whose journeys were often more
fascinating than their destinations.
As we continue to explore, pioneer and grow, the people of a young
nation no longer travel just for adventure or, as Stevenson opined,
solely for travel's sake. We began traveling for a much simpler
purpose. We traveled to get somewhere.
We never stop finding a way to do it safer, faster and cheaper.
Whether it was the trailblazers of the Old West laying rails across a
new frontier or immigrants from the Old World digging the ditches of a
new canal; the growth, prosperity and opportunities of this great
Nation have been intertwined with our ability, as a people, to move.
Throughout that history, this Congress has been called upon for its
leadership and sometimes its help to make certain that the
transportation needs of this country and its citizens were met safely,
efficiently, and adequately.
Often that work is not easy, and I commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his efforts and his diligence.
Mr. Speaker, air travel is as critical to our Nation's economy as its
future, just as surely as wagon trains and railroads were to expanding
our land and our prosperity.
Issues affecting airline, airport and aviation safety have been of
paramount concern over the years, and this Congress has been working to
find the solutions to those issues and problems.
Our Nation's travelers have rightfully called for a greater safety
and an end to needless delays and uncertain schedules. The airline
industry has called out for increased safety measures, much-needed
radar modernization and funding for airport construction projects.

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century provides for critical changes to improve competition, reforms
the Federal Aviation Administration, helps small communities and large
airports alike, and most important, makes our skies safer.
Mr. Speaker, the safety of our skies and our citizens must remain a
paramount concern of this Congress. This bill goes a long way toward
improving airline safety by increasing investment for FAA's facilities
and equipment budget by almost 50 percent so that the agency can
modernize our antiquated air traffic control system.
Additionally, H.R. 1000 provides the FAA sufficient funding to hire
and retain the air traffic controllers, maintenance technicians and
inspectors necessary for the safety of the aviation system.
Mr. Speaker, this bill helps airline passengers and their families by
strengthening the provisions of the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance
Act that was created following the tragic Value Jet and TWA 800
crashes.
Those terrible tragedies left already fearful family members without
timely or accurate information, something that should never happen
again.
Additionally, this bill spurs needed competition on behalf of
American consumers. In my own district in Upstate New York, the high
cost of air travel has been an ongoing concern, as we earned the
dubious distinction of being one of the costliest areas in the Nation
to travel by air. This region of the State, as do others across the
Nation, needs greater airline competition and lower airline costs.
H.R. 1000 addresses much of that concern, by setting a dated
elimination of slot restrictions at O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy
Airports, allowing smaller communities better access to New York and
Chicago, as well as immediate access for regional jets.
The bill also creates a new funding program to help small,
underserved airports market and promote their air service and for the
first time funds general aviation airports.
As our reliance on air travel for business and commerce, vocations
and vacations continues to grow, this bill provides the assistance
needed for burgeoning airports across the Nation.
In my own region, the Buffalo and Rochester Airports will see funds
from the Airport Improvement Program more than double, as will most
others across the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only accomplishes a great deal on behalf
of competition, growth, and safety in America's aviation system, it is
a product of deliberation and consensus reflecting both the
complexities and agreement of the two Houses of this Congress, as well
as the executive branch.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member, for their hard work on this measure. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert into the Record a
series of correspondence between the chairman and the ranking member of
the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure concerning application of section 106 of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 1000.

[[Page H1003]]

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Bud: The Rules Committee is planning to meet on March
14th to grant a rule for the Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act of the 21st Century (AIR21). Since the conference report
contains provisions establishing new points of order in the
rules of the House and Senate, we would appreciate you
responding to the enclosed questions prior to the hearing.
Your responses will help us to develop a legislative history
that will assist in the implementation of the points of order
contained in the legislation. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
David Dreier.
Joseph Moakley.

Questions to Chairman Shuster Regarding the Application of Section 106
of the Conference Report To Accompany H.R. 1000

1. How is the Chair to interpret the language in section
106 of the conference report with regard to a limitation
amendment to a general appropriation bill? In particular, how
should the Chair interpret ``cause total budget resources in
a fiscal year for aviation investment programs described in
subsection (b) to be less than the amount required by
subsection (a)(1)(A) for such fiscal year''? (Section
106(c)(1))
2. Is there statutory discretion for the FAA to reprogram
funds in the event of an amendment that limits funding for a
project? If so, where is the statutory discretion?
3. How is the Chair to interpret the language in section
106 of the conference report with regard to a supplemental
appropriations bill or a continuing resolution?
4. How is the Chair to interpret the language in section
106 of the conference report with regard to an ``across-the-
board'' cut?
5. What calculations would the Chair have to undertake in
determining whether the point of order applies to a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report?
6. To what extent should the Chair rely on estimates from
outside entities? (e.g. Budget Committee, CBO, OMB).
____

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congress
of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 14, 1999.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to your letter of March 10,
2000, regarding the Conference Report on H.R. 1000, the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the
21st Century (AIR 21), attached are responses to the
questions you sent to develop a legislative history that will
assist in the implementation of the points of order contained
in the legislation.
Please let us know if you need any further information.
With warm personal regards, we remain,
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.
James L. Oberstar,
Ranking Democratic Member.
Attachment.
1. How is the chair to interpret the language found in
section 106 of the Conference Report with regard to a
limitation amendment in a general appropriations bill? In
particular, how should the chair interpret ``cause total
budgetary resources for a fiscal year for aviation investment
programs described in subsection (b) to be less than the
amount required by subsection (a)(1)(A) for such fiscal
year''? (Section 106(c)(1))
The points of order in (c)(1) and (c)(2) should not
restrict the ability of Members to offer amendments on
appropriations bills that would have the effect of limiting
funding for an aviation project or activity that would
otherwise be funded from the Trust Fund.
The aviation statutes permit great flexibility in the
permissible uses of funds (see question 2, infra). Therefore,
if the Congress adopted an otherwise valid funding limitation
on any aviation project or activity, then the aviation
statutes permit sufficient flexibility such that the funds
that would otherwise have been obligated on that project
could be obligated on another project. As a result, a project
limitation amendment would not ``cause total budget
resources'' to be below the level specified by subsection
(a)(1)(A) and would not be subject to the point of order in
subsection (c)(1).
However, it is possible that a limitation amendment could
be offered to an appropriations bill that would trigger the
point of order. For example, a limitation amendment to reduce
funding for aviation investment programs below the guaranteed
levels would be subject to a point of order.
It is intended that these points of order will be triggered
when action is taken that would cause the total budgetary
resources that have been or will be made available from the
Trust Fund or for capital programs to be less than the
amounts specified in AIR 21. With respect to the point of
order in section (c)(1), the intent of the word ``cause'' is
that this point of order should lie against any specified
legislative action (or proposal) that would have the direct
or indirect effect of reducing the amount that has been or
will be made available to be obligated from the Trust Fund
below the level specified in subsection (a)(1)(A). A similar
analysis would be used for the point of order in section
(c)(2).
2. Is there statutory discretion for the FAA to reprogram
funds in the event of an amendment that limits funds for the
project? If so, where is the statutory discretion?
Yes, the FAA has statutory discretion to reprogram funds to
other projects. Sections 48101 and 44502 of title 49 provide
a broad authorization for the use of Facilities and Equipment
funds. If such funds are prohibited from being used for a
certain project, then the FAA may use those funds for a
variety of other authorized purposes within the Facilities
and Equipment program. Sections 48103 and 47104 of title
49 provide a similarly broad authorization for the use of
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. In addition,
section 47117(f) (as redesignated by section 104(g) of AIR
21), permits any amount of obligation authority that
cannot be used by the airport sponsor to which it has been
apportioned to be used instead for other airport
development projects through the AIP discretionary grant
program.
3. How is the Chair to interpret the language in section
106 of the Conference report with respect to a supplemental
appropriations bill or a continuing resolution?
The points of order in section 106 apply to any bill, joint
resolution or conference report. They make no exception for
supplemental appropriations bills or continuing resolutions.
Section 106 would apply to a supplemental appropriations
bill, but would only be incurred if that bill would either
cause total budgetary resources out of the Aviation Trust
Fund to fall below that year's estimated taxes plus interest,
or if the sum of the appropriations for the capital programs
fell below the levels set forth in AIR 21.
With respect to a continuing resolution, the points of
order in section 106 are intended to ensure that the amounts
intended to be made available for a fiscal year are in fact
made available. Therefore, if a continuing resolution is
adopted making short-term funding available for FAA programs,
it is not expected that any points of order in Section 106
would be at issue. However, if a continuing resolution were
to attempt to undermine the funding guarantees in AIR 21,
then the points of order in section 106 would be at issue.
4. How is the Chair to interpret section 106 with respect
to an across-the-board cut?
The points of order in Section 106 would apply to any bill
making an across-the-board cut if it would undermine the
funding guarantees in AIR 21.
5. What calculations would the Chair have to undertake in
determining whether the point of order applies to a bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report?
In a bill making general appropriations for transportation
programs, the Chair would need to make a series of simple
calculations to determine whether either or both points of
order apply.
For the point of order in subsection (c)(1), the Chair
would first need to determine the amount of total budget
resources being made available. Subsection (b)(1) defines the
term ``total budget resources'' and these headings are easily
identifiable in each appropriations bill. Obviously, any
amounts would need to be netted against any provisions which
reduce the amounts made available in the bill.
After the Chair determines the amount of total budget
resources being made available, he would need to compare it
to the level of receipts plus interest for that year.
Subsection (b)(2) defines the term ``level of receipts plus
interest'' to mean the level of excise taxes and interest
estimated to be credited to the Trust Fund in the President's
Budget baseline projections for that year.
In general, for the point of order in subsection (c)(2),
the Chair will need to determine whether the sum total of
budget resources for Facilities and Equipment and Grants-in-
Aid for Airports provided in that same, or previous measures,
for that fiscal year is at least equal to the sum of the
authorized levels for those programs for that fiscal year.
The authorized levels for Facilities and Equipment and
Grants-in-Aid for Airports are found in sections 48101 and
48103, respectively, of title 49, United States Code.
6. To what extent should the Chair rely on estimates from
outside entities? (e.g. Budget Committee, CBO, OMB)
For the routine evaluation of the points of order, the
Chair would rely on estimates from all appropriate entities.
To the extent a dispute arises over the level of receipts and
interest in the President's Budget, it is intended that the
Chair be advised of amounts and levels by the Congressional
Budget Office.

follow-up questions from chairman dreier and ranking member moakley

1. The first point is the question #1, where you mention
``direct and indirect effect of reducing the amount that has
been or will be made available to be obligated from the Trust
fund . . .''. Please elaborate on what you mean by an
indirect effect? Are you talking about an indirect effect
that is based in aviation funding (such as an FTE amendment)
or do you mean an indirect effect based on more general
discretionary spending?

[[Page H1004]]

2. The second point is in question #3, where you state how
the point of order would apply to a continuing resolution.
you seem to state that a short term continuing resolution
would not be affected by the section 106 points of order.
Short term C.R.s are meant to be a noncontroversial band-aid
so Congress can work on the larger appropriation bills.
However, your last sentence in your response to question #3
states that if a C.R. ``were to attempt to undermine the
funding guarantees in AIR 21, then the points of order in
section 106 would be at issue.'' Would our typical short term
C.R. ``undermine funding guarantees,'' or do you mean the
long term, year-long C.R.s?

responses to follow-up questions from chairman shuster and ranking
member oberstar

Follow up to Question #1
We believe that the point of order would be triggered by
any action that would directly or indirectly cause budget
resources to be less than set forth in AIR 21. We mean
indirect to refer to any action that might be taken which
would undermine the funding guarantee. There are many
ingenious ways that could be devised to undermine the funding
guarantee, and we want the point of order to apply to any
action which would accomplish this.
For example, an amendment which would have the effect of
deeming an operations account activity to be a facilities and
equipment account activity would be an indirect way of
undermining the guarantee.
Follow-up to Question #3
Technically, the points of order in Section 106 of AIR 21
apply to any continuing resolution funding FAA programs. In
the circumstance of the typical short-term continuing
resolution making appropriations for days or a few weeks at
the start of a fiscal year while Congress completed its work,
we would not raise, nor would we object to a rule waiving the
points of order. In the case of a longer continuing
resolution, we would have to evaluate them on a case-by-case
basis. As we have stated, the intent of the points of order
is to prevent undermining the funding guarantees in AIR 21.
We would look at any longer CR to determine if it would in
practice undermine the funding guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution waives all points of order against the
conference report and its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying bill and want to praise the
chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, as well as the chairman and the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, for the extraordinary work that they have
done to ensure that America's aviation system will remain safe and
competitive as we enter the 21st century.
Generations of taxpayers have spent millions of dollars ensuring that
our aviation system is the envy of the world, but that superiority is
by no means certain unless we act.
Many communities now find themselves cut off from the booming economy
as a result of the inability to move their goods and services where
they need to go. This problem has enormous economic implications for
certain regions of the country, including my own. I have said it before
and I will say it again, that economic development cannot occur without
affordable, accessible air transportation.
My district of Rochester, New York, and, of course, my great interest
in Buffalo is the largest per capita exporting city in the United
States and last year 1.2 million people flew out of our airport.
My district, Rochester, contains Fortune 500 companies such as
Eastman Kodak, Xerox Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, and Bausch and
Lomb. Of equal importance are the hundreds of small and mid-sized high
technology firms that have been growing in our region over the past
several years. These companies are now critical to the lifeblood of our
community, but many firms are either moving out or choosing to expand
in other regions of the country due to exorbitant airfares and the
inability to get a decent flight schedule.
A relatively young and growing Rochester-based firm recently wrote to
me that high airfares to and from Rochester are the primary reason that
it froze professional positions in its local office and opted instead
to expand its mid-Atlantic offices.

{time} 1030

Trends like this can and do enormous damage to any community.
Rochester is like many mid-sized communities that somehow got left out
of the benefits promised by deregulation. To be blunt, deregulation
failed us. During the 1960s, 13 air carriers served our region,
affording consumers choices and creating a competitive environment and
produced reasonable fares. Now there is one dominant carrier, four
additional carriers and a few very small ones that effectively serve
our region, and my constituents pay some of the highest air fares in
the country.
Major airline carriers have clipped the wings of any start-up
carrier, and while more than one carrier may service our region, they
do not compete among themselves on most routes. The result has been the
creation of a de facto monopoly on individual routes that are gouging
business people and consumers when they fly. For example, Mr. Speaker,
one can fly from Rochester to Chicago round trip for $1,200 to the
penny on any airline serving Rochester that will take you there.
Congress can and must level the playing field for start-up carriers
so that they can compete with the major carriers. Low-cost airlines
formed after deregulation are the primary source of price competition
in other areas of the country, and Rochester is a prime example of what
happens without this pressure.
Two years ago I pledged to my constituents to confront this problem
head on in the Congress. I authored legislation and called on the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to get tough
on the predatory behavior of major carriers. I have testified numerous
times before my House and Senate colleagues and conducted hearings in
Rochester with Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater.
As we are here today, the Department of Justice has launched a full-
blown antitrust investigation into the behavior of the major carriers.
The Department of Transportation for the first time in 20 years is
looking at measures to prevent anticompetitive behavior. Thirty-six
States' Attorneys General are pressing their State courts into action,
and comprehensive legislation before us today will provide additional
airport capacity and help to improve large and small airports to ensure
that we have fair competition.
Moreover, a new start-up airline, JetBlue, will be serving Rochester
in the coming year. I was pleased to be in Buffalo for their inaugural
flight to New York City, and I was also pleased to help ensure
JetBlue's access to the slot-controlled John F. Kennedy Airport in New
York City and look forward to the relief their flights will provide in
our community.
Let me speak a moment about the slot issue, although this has been
alleviated in this report. Slots refer to the landing and take-off
rights for each flight. The slot provisions included in the underlying
bill are critical to this debate, and I am delighted that the measure
begins to undo the damage created by the current system.
Currently, major carriers have a stranglehold on these slots,
effectively preventing low-cost carriers from entering the market. In
the 18 years since airline deregulation, major airlines have increased
their grip on access to slots at major airports. The four slot-
controlled airports in the country, LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports in
New York, O'Hare in Chicago and National Airport near Washington, the
dominant airlines use their control of slots to squeeze out the smaller
carriers and consumers are being crushed in the process.
When these slots were first distributed, DOT made clear to the
airlines the slots were government property owned by the American
people. The government reserved the right to reclaim them at a future
date to promote fair competition. With the growing move by large
airlines to consolidate slots, this action is long overdue, and I am
delighted to see it in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, again, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member
of both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Subcommittee on Aviation for their extraordinary work and for standing
firm in the conference on our behalf. I will not call for a recorded
vote. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that the
resolution makes in order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1005]]

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for deferring to me
because I have to be in a markup. I really appreciate the courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, as my friend
from Pennsylvania knows. My concerns about this bill are the same as
those I have expressed for many years. I believe this bill will
increase safety hazards for those flying into O'Hare and for my
constituents who live under O'Hare's increasingly congested flight
paths. I believe this will help create massive gridlock and delays at
O'Hare and across the Nation.
Compressing more aircraft operations into the extremely limited
capacity at O'Hare compromises safety and poses a significant risk of
an air tragedy. I do not now dispute the fact that demand has grown.
However, this demand has outgrown the capacity of O'Hare to safely
handle this growth.
We know that at current levels of operations, we are shoehorning too
many flights into O'Hare, creating recurrent near misses and near
catastrophes at an overloaded airport. To paraphrase one senior pilot,
``O'Hare is an accident waiting to happen.''
Adding more flights will only increase the already unacceptable
safety hazards at O'Hare. The only way to shoehorn more flights into
the airport is to increase the operations frequency in bad, low
visibility weather, typically by squeezing the operations closer
together in time and space; that is, reducing separation distances
between aircraft, converging triple arrivals in fog and rain. Murphy's
law tells us that it is only a matter of time before this increased
jamming of flights results in a disaster.
The only way to safely address the Chicago metro region's critical
capacity shortfall is to build a third airport. A third airport is the
only safe, sound and effective response of the public's need for more
flights.
To those who argue that lifting of the slot rule will increase
competition, I challenge you to show the specific facts that
demonstrate that lifting the slot rule will actually increase
competition. We have had a slot exemption on the books since 1994 to
allow new competition at O'Hare, 6 years, yet the overwhelming majority
of added flights under this exemption have gone to the affiliates of
two major airlines.
So, if you want to increase competition, why not do it in the safest,
and I emphasize safest, most logical effective way possible. The answer
to effectively creating real time competition in the Chicago region is
a new regional airport of sufficient size to allow new entrants to come
in with a critical mass of flight operations. That means the capacity
to grow and accommodate thousands of flights daily, capacity that can
only be obtained at a new metro Chicago airport.
Mark my words: Congress' action in lifting the slots will create an
air traffic logjam of nightmare dimensions at O'Hare. We all know
O'Hare already has a national reputation for delays. Thousands of
stranded travelers frequently sleep overnight on temporary army cots at
``Camp O'Hare.'' Yet Congress' action in lifting the slot limits will
cause these already intolerable delays to skyrocket, not only for
passengers on new flights, but for passengers on all the flights into
and out of O'Hare.
Mr. Speaker, there will come a day when the chickens come home to
roost on the failures in this bill. It is my fondest wish that I will
not have to be the one standing in this House in the wake of a major
catastrophe at O'Hare to tell my colleagues ``I told you so.''
Another unfortunate aspect of this bill is it is a tax increase. It
raises the passenger facility charge on each ticket from $3 to $4.50.
So those of you that campaign as tax slashers, ax the taxes, had better
explain this to your folks, because this is a tax increase.
O'Hare field will have flight increases in the year 2002 while
LaGuardia's increases do not occur until 2007. I cannot explain this
differential. I can only speculate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reply to a few of the statements
made by my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
First of all, in regards to the safety at O'Hare airport, the high
density rule was never put in place because of safety, it was put in
place for other reasons. About 6 or 7 months ago at a public hearing I
had the Secretary of Transportation and also the head of the FAA, and I
asked them about safety concerns at O'Hare airport. Both of them made
mention of the fact that the high density rule was never put in place
for any kind of safety rules whatsoever, it was put in place for other
reasons. They had both recommended that the high density rule be
removed at O'Hare airport. I asked them if removing the high density
rule in the year 2000 would create any safety problems. Both of them
testified, absolutely not.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who has opposed the lifting
of the high density rule, was successful in having us move the date
from 2000 back to 2002. There was a slow phase-in period at O'Hare
airport from 2000 to 2002, and we can thank the lobbying by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on behalf of that for that being in
the bill.
The gentleman mentioned the increase in the passenger facility charge
going from $3 to $4.50. We on the Federal level simply give the local
airport authorities the ability to increase this passenger facility
charge. We do not impose a new tax upon the flying public. But this
increase in the PFC really will aid and assist the residents around
O'Hare airport more than anyone else because it will enable us to
soundproof more homes, more schools, more churches around O'Hare
airport.
Also the lifting of the high density rule will allow us to put more
flights into O'Hare airport when people are not sleeping. At the
present time, because of the high density rule, many flights have been
scheduled during the night hours and the early morning hours. Lifting
the high density rule will spread the flights out more during the
course of the daytime operation of O'Hare airport, thereby giving the
sleeping quality around O'Hare a considerable increase.
So I understand the objections of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), but I think if you look at it in the short run and the long run,
it is not only good for competition, it is really good for all the
residents around O'Hare Airport.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the House passed AIR 21 by an overwhelming
vote of 316 to 110. Then we went to conference with the Senate, and the
Senate had several significant objections to the bill. For several
months we negotiated in good faith.
As a result of that negotiation, the very leaders of the Senate who
were opposed when we went into the conference, and I refer specifically
to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, the leaders
in opposition as a result of our negotiating and compromising in good
faith, have all become vigorous supporters of this legislation, and,
indeed, cast their vote last week in the Senate for this legislation.
Indeed, the vote in the Senate was an overwhelming 82 to 17.
But we did have to compromise. We had to compromise, and, as Henry
Clay said many years ago, compromise is honorable, because in
compromise, while you always give up something, you get something in
return.
This legislation, with the overwhelming support it now has, does
several things. First, we guarantee that the budget resources provided
each year for the Aviation Trust Fund will equal this year's estimated
receipts and interest. In other words, we unlock the Aviation Trust
Fund, and, of course, without any tax increase.
Second, we guaranteed that the capital accounts, facilities and
equipment,

[[Page H1006]]

and the grants in aid to airports, will be fully funded each year from
the trust fund. Now, this carries out the intent of Congress in
establishing the trust fund, that the capital needs be met before the
trust fund revenue can be used for operating accounts.
Third, the program has been structured in a way to ensure a
significant general fund contribution, although the exact amount of
that contribution will be left up to the Committee on Appropriations.
This was an area of significant compromise.

{time} 1045

The House did not achieve our guaranteed general fund contribution
that we wanted; but in another way, we created a mechanism by which
general fund money can be available.
Fourth, the conference report contains strong and enforceable
mechanisms to ensure that the funding guarantees are honored. Again,
this was an area of compromise. The House dropped its insistence on
off-budget or firewalls and agreed to use points of order as an
enforcement mechanism.
Now, this agreement to use points of order was predicated on the
commitment of the House leadership not to waive those points of order
in situations where the guarantees would be undermined. In a March 8
letter to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of
the Committee on Rules, the Speaker of the House wrote, ``I support
these funding guarantees. I will oppose efforts to undermine these
guarantees during the full term of the bill. If such an effort were to
occur, I would oppose waiving any points of order enforcing the funding
guarantees. The House-passed position on this matter was off-budget
status for the aviation trust fund. In agreeing to the conference
report, the House conferees made significant procedural concessions to
the Senate premised on my assurance that as Speaker, I would oppose
efforts to waive the section 106 points of order against any bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report, or amendment
thereto. I am determined to follow through on this commitment, and I
know I can count on the support of the Committee on Rules.''
In response, in reply to the Speaker's letter, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) indicated his full support for the Speaker's
position. He stated, and I quote, ``In recognition of the fact that
section 106(C)(3) was removed from the conference report, you can count
on my full support for your position.''
While the funding guarantees and the enforcement mechanisms should in
and of themselves provide sufficient assurance that the increased
aviation funding called for in AIR 21 will materialize, our overall
agreement on the conference report provided additional assurances. Both
the House and Senate leadership have agreed to ensure that the fiscal
year 2001 budget resolution fully fund AIR 21, both trust fund and
general fund, for the full term of the bill, while not reducing funding
for other transportation function 400 programs.
This ensures that the Committee on Appropriations will receive an
allocation sufficient to fund aviation in fiscal year 2001 at about
$12.7, $2.7 billion over the enacted fiscal year 2000 levels.
In closing, let me thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules and
our leadership for this strong support. I understand the Speaker, once
again, along with the majority leader, will be vigorously supporting
this legislation.
Let me say to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde),
he is absolutely right. There would be safety problems at O'Hare, but
those safety problems would exist if this bill does not pass. It is the
passage of this bill which provides for increased safety for O'Hare
through modernization of the air traffic control system; and indeed,
for that reason, the bill should be passed. It helps O'Hare; and
indeed, there is no tax increase in this bill. What we do, particularly
those of us who are conservative Republicans like my good friend, the
gentleman from Illinois, we turn back to the local authorities, the
local elected officials, the local airport authorities. It is their
decision to decide whether or not there should be an increase in
passenger facility charges. That is good conservative orthodoxy, and it
is one more reason why this legislation should be passed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak
in favor of the AIR 21 conference report today. I want to commend the
leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Duncan); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for
driving this through the hurdles and the barriers. They have done a
tremendous job, I believe.
As a Member of Congress from New Jersey and a frequent flyer, I am
often reminded of the shortfalls in our Nation's aviation
infrastructure. There are many days when I spend far more time on the
tarmac at Newark International Airport than in the air. Despite the
hard work and the immense effort of the men and women who work there,
every year Newark Airport is one of the worst airports in the Nation in
delays. This long-standing problem with delays can only be solved with
airport improvements and investment.
For people like me who use Newark International Airport, these new
funds translate into other tangible improvements. For example, new
airport improvement program funds can be used to improve Newark's
existing runways and make improvements that will reduce delays. More
funding for the facilities and equipment program will mean improved air
traffic control equipment for a facility in desperate need of a new
tower.
Additionally, about $3.8 billion will be provided for hub airports
like Newark, which will allow it to acquire new radar like the ASDE-3
radar due to come on-line soon. Increased funding also translates to
more noise abatement projects.
When it comes to addressing the priorities of America's airports, air
noise has long taken a back seat behind infrastructure and technology
concerns. We must move methodically on this complex issue. But to the
human beings who live near airports, this matter could not be more
important. I am talking about the quality-of-life issues near airports.
It is time to make it a priority.
Most importantly, increasing the budget of the FAA operations will
allow the agency to more efficiently design and implement important
airspace-critical initiatives. That is why the National Airspace
Redesign must be made a national priority.
Mr. Speaker, I implore the House not to move expeditiously on the
subject of airport noise while we are trying to redesign the system.
This is what makes sense. This is the safe way to go.
Completion and implementation of the redesign of the entire air
traffic control system will result in fewer delays and fewer headaches
for those on the ground. Having begun in New Jersey and Newark, the
comprehensive airspace redesign is essential to Newark and its
surrounding airports.
That is why I have offered the amendment to the House report that
expresses the sense of the Congress that the administrator of the
Federal Aviation Authority should complete and begin implementation of
a comprehensive national airspace redesign as soon as practicable. This
amendment has been included in the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all to vote in favor of this conference report.
We owe it to our constituents who must deal with air noise traffic
daily, day in and day out.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by commending the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the committee, the two
most effective combination leaders in the House. I know why the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is: he is a Pitt grad. I cannot figure out
what the secret of the gentleman from Minnesota is yet.

[[Page H1007]]

I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), my very
good friend, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who has
done a great job.
I am here for a little promotion, and I am here to talk about some
business. This is good for America. The chairman has finally opened up
some money. I pushed hard for general aviation because I have a small
airport, and I want to get money for my district.
Second of all, I have now developed the longest runway between Newark
and Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Canada, and Louisville, Kentucky
that has hardly no commercial flight. I am open for a cargo hub. I beat
the hell out of Japan and China, and if my colleagues want me to stop
doing that, give me a call. I want them to drop their cargo off in
Youngstown.
Now, to my business. According to the Flight Safety Foundation, the
number one cause of airplane disasters is situational awareness. Pilots
do not know where they are. The Traficant amendment, which I thank my
colleagues for including, includes the study and the utilization of a
new technology called Enhanced Visual Laser Guidance Systems.
Now, I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), here is how
it works. The pilot is 20 miles out, he sees a red light blinking, he
is too far right. He sees a green light blinking, he is too far left.
He goes to where he sees the amber light, he goes right at it, and he
lands in the same spot every time if it is zero density, no visibility.
Now I want to talk about the disastrous deaths of the people on that
Arkansas flight. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, this is the
testimony: the pilot said he approached in dense fog. He circled
towards the runway. At the last minute, he visually saw the runway and
made that split second decision that he believed he could land his
craft safely. He misjudged and made a bad decision. The plane landed
long, which meant he landed further on the runway than he normally
would have had he had visibility. But second of all, he hit a light
stanchion, the light stanchion destroying the plane, bursting into
flames, all died.
The Traficant amendment says it costs nothing to put it on an
airplane. It is put in each airport. If it is dead-bang fog, the pilot
will see that runway, and there is no need for light stanchions. The
cold cathode lights do not reflect and the lights can even be seen.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
the Pitt graduate, for accepting my language; and I thank the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), although he did not listen to my speech.
I am still trying to figure out how he is so effective with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time. I also would like to congratulate the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee; the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member; and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the subcommittee chairman; and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, this has been one of the
most important issues for us to address, especially in Maine.
Deregulation of the airlines has benefited many America communities;
but in many places it has created some challenges, no more so than in
Bangor, Maine, where we were fortunate enough to hold a Subcommittee on
Aviation hearing with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and other Members that were
there to listen to the testimony of Bangor International Airport and
listen to the hardships the communities have in trying to make sure not
only that they get quality service but they get service to make sure
that every part of America has an opportunity at quality and dependable
jet service.
Bangor has been very challenged by that deregulation. The declining
availability of flights has caused other problems: increased reliance
on small, noisy and uncomfortable prop planes, and people are forced to
drive to Manchester or Boston, far away, in order to get connective
flights.
This legislation is going to be able to double the appropriations
that those kinds of airports get so that they can provide the
improvements to be able to draw carriers, get dependable service, and
make sure that the people whom we represent get that quality service
and dependable service, without having to make those long, arduous
trips and endangering public health and safety.
This bill is going to be able to address it. It is going to be a 3-
year authorization. It is going to double that appropriation that was
there before, not only to the primary airports in Bangor, Presque Isle,
and in Portland, but also general aviation airports. It is going to
make sure that a lot of those small general aviation airports get the
needed infusion of resources to do an even better job.
Also, it does reinforce the importance of the trust fund. I think our
work on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been to
resurrect those trust fund laws to make sure that the taxes, whether it
is on roads, rails or air, are going into a trust fund and those
resources are going back to what those taxes and fees were first
assigned for. I think this does that.
I compliment the committee and the bipartisan nature of our work. I
am really pleased at the work by Secretary Slater and by FAA
Administrator Jane Garvey.

{time} 1100

The bipartisan nature of our committee and the working partnership of
it I think is truly a model for other committees in this Congress.
I compliment all of those, including the staffs of both sides who
have worked so hard to bring this about, because it could not have been
done without them. It may look easy, but it is a lot of hard work by an
awful lot of people.
So it is critical that we maintain our focus on a balanced
transportation infrastructure. I believe that this legislation does
this. I encourage all Members to support this, it is badly needed, and
to make sure we get this out there as soon as possible.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today and urge a no vote on this rule. This up
and coming Saturday in my congressional district, several thousand
people will be marching, not only against this conference report but
against the use of the passenger facility charge in the city of Chicago
and in the northeastern Illinois region.
This conference report increases the passenger facility charge from
$3 to $4.50. However, it fails to ensure that PFC funds earned will be
used in the way Congress originally intended.
The stated purpose of the PFC act was to, and I quote, ``enhance
safety * * * or capacity of the national air transportation system;
reduce noise * * * from airports; and furnish opportunities for
enhanced competition among or between the carriers.''
Appropriate use of PFCs has been an ongoing problem since they were
instituted in 1990. The city of Chicago currently collects the $3
ticket tax to the tune of about $100 million a year, although much of
this revenue stream is not being used as Congress intended, to increase
capacity.
Instead, the city has used PFCs in a number of ways:
To finance a $2.2 billion cosmetic facelift at O'Hare Airport. And
even without the flight restrictions offered, the lifting of those
flight restrictions offered in this legislation, that $2.2 billion has
not increased capacity at O'Hare Airport by one new flight;
To finance a $700 million terminal expansion at Midway Airport. The
airport of the gentleman from Illinois, its longest runway is 6,446
feet, and therefore, no Series V or VI airplanes will ever land there.
The $700 million at his airport for terminal expansion will not
increase the size of the aircraft that land at his airport by 1 foot.

[[Page H1008]]

There are future plans to use PFCs in my city to finance highways
leading to O'Hare Airport. Why should passengers flying on airplanes be
paying for highways with passenger facility charge dollars? Because the
traffic jams getting to the airport because of the growth in the
northeastern part of our city and State is all concentrated in one
area, with none of it working its way south.
Rather than using Federal taxes to enhance capacity, safety, or
competition, Chicago is also spending $1.7 billion to enhance existing
monopolies, without creating room for even one new flight, capacity
being defined using at least four factors: runway length, space between
runways and taxiways, airspace, spacing between aircraft, weight and
restriction of the aircraft. Absolutely none of this money in the city
of Chicago is being used for runway length or runway expansion. I
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde).
So despite soaring ticket prices, service by airlines to and from
O'Hare is being systematically reduced, particularly to smaller cities.
Due to rising fares and reduced services, the major airlines at O'Hare
Airport are posting record profits, led by whooping 63 percent earnings
gained by United Airlines in the fourth quarter of last year.
That is in part because then Congressman Rostenkowski pushed
legislation through which created a $3 passenger facility charge or
ticket tax, no matter what they choose to call it in this Congress it
is a tax, to pay for a new airport, an airport that was never built.
However, the Governors of our State, Jim Edgar and Jim Ryan, quickly
proposed building a new airport in and around my congressional
district, where the growth and economic impact would greatly benefit my
constituents.
Instead of using the resources for a much needed purpose, these
resources are going to enhance existing monopolies at existing
monopolistic airports. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and
the conference report on AIR-21.
I would like to start by taking this opportunity to commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and the other members of the
conference committee for moving this legislation forward to ensure that
our Nation's aviation system remains the finest and the safest in the
world. That is our overarching objective, to maintain an aviation
system that continues to be the finest and safest in the world.
AIR-21 offers a certain and responsible level of funding for aviation
infrastructure funding. It also offers some good news for the
environment.
I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a provision that
will, for the first time, provide Federal assistance to help airports
address increasingly difficult air quality problems. I introduced
legislation last year known as the Airport Air Quality Improvement Act.
I am proud to say that this legislation has been incorporated into AIR-
21 and is now part of the conference agreement.
My legislation is a pilot program under which the Secretary of
Transportation is to issue grants to ten airports for the acquisition
of low emission vehicles, equipment, and related infrastructure
support. Grant selection will be targeted at airports submitting plans
that will achieve the greatest pollution reductions per dollar of funds
provided.
The ten airports selected would be required to match the up to $2
million Federal grant for each on a 50/50 basis. These airports will be
located in areas not attaining Federal Clean Air Act standards.
Airports are now frequently the single largest source of pollution
within their State or region. The operation of cars and trucks and
buses and vans may account for up to 50 percent or more of airport
emissions. This pilot program will promote the expanded use of natural
gas and electric vehicles and equipment at our Nation's airports,
helping to reduce smog-forming pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic
air contaminants.
I am particularly pleased that this approach has not only drawn the
support of our committee's bipartisan leadership, but also has been
supported by groups including the National Conference of Mayors, the
Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, and virtually all of the
major automobile manufacturers.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the leadership of the
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition in assembling the group of diverse
interests which worked hard to make this initiative a reality. My staff
and I look forward to working with the Secretary of Transportation, the
FAA administrator, and their staffs toward the prompt and successful
implementation of this Clean Air Act program.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that AIR-21 includes
another provision that I have championed to provide whistle-blower
protection for both FAA and airline employees so they can reveal
legitimate safety problems without fear of retaliation.
I have worked closely with my colleague, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), over the past two congresses to ensure that
aviation workers can blow the whistle on safety problems without
looking over their shoulders and fearing retribution.
I am proud to see this much needed protection included in the
conference agreement. AIR-21 makes sense for the flying public, it
makes sense for the Nation's airports, and it makes sense for the
environment. That is a winning combination. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding this time to me.
I would like to address some of the issues that the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) brought up. He is very much interested in
building a third airport in the Chicagoland area in order to create
economic development and job creation within his congressional
district, which I understand and which I appreciate.
But we do not build an airport to create economic development and
cause job creation, we build an airport because we need additional
capacity. Obviously, no one believes, other than a small group of
people, that we need additional capacity in the Chicagoland area at the
present time. Not one single carrier, passenger or freight, has been
willing to go into a third airport located within the area of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). We all know that the carriers
are the ones who really wind up footing the largest portion of the bill
to create a new airport.
The gentleman talks about the misuse of the PFC. I believe this
statement is totally and completely untrue. The PFC has been utilized
for what it is supposed to be utilized for. Some areas of the country
have tried to utilize it for other purposes. In this new AIR-21 bill,
we have tightened what the PFC can be utilized for. In my own community
around Midway Airport and around O'Hare Airport, it has been used
extensively for noise reduction in homes, in churches, in schools.
The gentleman talks about not having competition at O'Hare Airport.
At O'Hare Airport we have the two largest carriers in the world
operating, American and United Airlines. They are in a fierce
competition. Their competition drastically reduce prices at O'Hare
Airport. They have flights from Chicago to Washington National starting
at 6:30 a.m. running until 8 p.m. each and every day, every hour on the
hour and every hour on the half-hour. This is terrific, terrific
competition. The lifting of the high density rule will improve this
competition.
And last but not least, it was not Dan Rostenkowski that pushed
through the House of Representatives a PFC. The man who spearheaded it,
the man who saw the wisdom in doing it, the man

[[Page H1009]]

that had the vision to do it, is sitting right behind me. At the time
he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. Today he is the
ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I also
worked with him, but he was the man that did it. Dan Rostenkowski was
busy taking care of tax matters at that time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly).
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
conference report.
Though the effort to get this rule and conference report to the floor
has been a lengthy one, let there be no mistaking that our fundamental
purpose here for undertaking this initiative is to ensure the safety of
the traveling public.
The legislation before this body today represents a level of
commitment to this purpose that is unprecedented. While safety has
always been a priority while formulating aviation policy, it is clear
that efforts to provide adequate resources for this intention have
fallen sometimes very short, having seen firsthand the antiquated
equipment many of our air traffic controllers must use in keeping our
skies safe, for instance, at Stewart Airport in my district.
I cannot overstate the importance of making sure that the days of
reliance on this ancient and antiquated equipment must be limited.
By ensuring a strong and viable funding source for aviation
investment, this bill marks a significant stride in making safety a
priority in practice, not just in rhetoric.
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) for their leadership on this issue, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Jones).
Ms. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding this time to me. I rise in
support of the rule.
What does AIR-21 mean to the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio?
It is paramount to the continued service delivery of goods and services
for our Nation's travelers. Further, I believe it is a step in the
right direction for America.
I come from the city of Cleveland, that houses the Cleveland-Hopkins
Airport. My father worked for 38 years as a skycap for United Airlines.
I watched as a child the growth and expansion of Cleveland Hopkins
Airport. But currently, it is unable to perform simultaneous landings
because of inadequate runway space.

{time} 1115

I know Cleveland is not the only city with limited runway space, and
I would urge my colleagues who even represent small and medium-sized
airports to support this rule and legislation. It will provide money
for runways and other equipment at airports. It ensures the FAA has
funding to hire and retain air traffic controllers, maintenance
technicians, and safety inspectors. It authorizes funding to improve
the training of airport screeners and requires cargo airlines to
install collision avoidance systems on aircrafts.
This is the first comprehensive legislation we have had in recent
memory that addresses many of these issues. Specifically, I am very
happy that this will be the first time that explicitly racial
discrimination in air travel will be prohibited. It is a long time
coming, and it ought to be handled.
Furthermore, other projects that will be protected, it will protect
funding for letters of intent and makes it clear that it is not
necessary that an airport assess a passenger facility charge in order
to get a letter of intent.
Because of the shortness of time and the number of people who would
like to speak, I just urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on this
vital piece of legislation, the conference report on AIR 21.
Specifically, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski), ranking members, for including provisions in this bill
that will bring fairer treatment to families of victims involved in
airline disasters on the high seas. These provisions will have a
similar effect to the intent of my bill, the Airline Disaster Relief
Act, which passed the House 412 to 2.
This compromise language will allow families who have lost loved ones
in aviation disasters over international waters to seek more categories
of compensation previously ineligible under the 1920s Death on the High
Seas Act.
It specifically addresses the inequities faced by families like those
in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, a town in my district who lost 22
family members in the TWA Flight 800 disaster of July 1996.
The time has come to create one level playing field and one process
for airline crash claims. The current treatment of land and sea crash
victims as separate and unequal must come to an end. I want to thank
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their efforts to bring justice out of
disaster.
A small part of the legacy that the victims of TWA-800 will have
through the efforts of their families is that the laws of the greatest
Nation on Earth will be changed for the better. With passage of this
bill, no longer will a parent be told by our Nation's legal system that
longitude and latitude will determine the value of their children.
I want to thank my colleagues for their compassion for the families
of airline crash victims and the excellent work that they accomplished
in crafting this bill.
I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and this bill. It is the just
and right thing to do.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, every Member here owes appreciation to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for today's bill.
What we are doing with this bill is to try to do with AIR 21 what we
are trying to do with TEA 21. It is time to do for air what we are
trying to do for surface transportation. Our committee has guaranteed
the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund and, therefore, the
improvements in our airports that the American people have long
awaited.
If you see large increases in this bill, such as the 50 percent
increase for the FAA, it will seem less large when we consider the
antiquated and obsolete nature of our traffic control system.
This bill is wonderfully comprehensive. There is not a Member here
who will not be affected, because the reach is to small and large
jurisdictions alike.
There has been increasing pressure on large hubs and airports.
Members are aware of the pressure at National, Dulles, and Baltimore
because they use these airports themselves and feel that pressure. Two
measures directly affect these airports.
I do regret that the slots at National, an already overburdened
airport, were raised to 24. I am pleased and very grateful that our
committee tried to keep them to six, because this is a greatly
overtaxed airport, surrounded by residences and businesses.
I want to thank our conferees for resisting the proposal of the
Senate, the other body, for 48 slots. So, it is now only 24 slots. As
much as I regret that number, I know the kind of fight our conferees
had to make in order to get only 24.

[[Page H1010]]

I certainly want to say how grateful I am that the committee has
eliminated the requirement that Federal appointees to the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority here in this region, be confirmed before
receiving any Federal money or proceeding with new facilities. The
Members have seen what that has meant in delays to reviving these
airports, particularly National and Dulles. It has been very painful
for all concerned.
We have made it easier for millions of Americans who use these
airports and for Members themselves, by allowing this airport region to
operate as other airports do. I very much appreciate the work of the
committee and of the conferees in particular.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 6 minutes remaining. All time has expired
for the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to close, this bill not only accomplishes a great deal
on behalf of competition, growth, and safety in America's aviation
system, it is a product of deliberation and consensus, reflecting both
the complexities and agreement of the two Houses of this Congress as
well as the Executive Branch.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
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 resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 438, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1000) 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 438, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
March 8, 2000, at page H649.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will
control 30 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that both the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) support the conference report. If that is the case, then
under rule XXII, I ask that I be assigned one-third of the time in
opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) supports the conference report. Does
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) also support the conference
report?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 8(d)(2) of rule XXII, one-third
of the time will be allotted to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
in opposition.
Each of the three gentlemen will control 20 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, I rise in strong support of this conference report. The
greatest aviation system in the world is hurdling toward gridlock and
potential catastrophes in our skies, and this bill will make those
skies safer, reduce flight delays, and increase competition by
modernizing our air traffic control system and improving our airports.
But we would not be here today but for the tremendous bipartisan
support in this House and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar),
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski), and the unanimous support of our committee as AIR 21
worked its way through the House and passed overwhelmingly 316 to 110.
When we went to the Senate, we found that there was very strong
opposition by some to certain provisions of our legislation. Indeed,
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator
Stevens, opposed it; the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Budget, Senator Domenici, opposed it; and the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, opposed
it.
Because of their strong opposition, we negotiated in good faith, and
we negotiated to remove and change the provisions that the
appropriators found objectionable. As a result of that, I am so pleased
to report that those very Senators who started out in opposition to the
House bill, because of our compromises, ended up vigorously supporting
the bill.
So I am a bit mystified, I must admit, that we still seem to have
some opposition from appropriators in the House after the negotiations
we conducted with the leading appropriators in the Senate and got their
strong support. They voted for the bill as well as the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget.
I also would be remiss if I certainly did not mention the strong
support of both the majority leader and the minority leader in the
Senate as well as Senator Gorton, Senator Rockefeller, Senator
Hollings, and Senator Warner, recognizing some of the problems we have
here locally with the Reagan National Airport. So as a result of
negotiation and good faith, these very Members who started out in
opposition came around to support this bill.
By unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund, this conference report provides
$40 billion over the next 3 years for aviation investment programs, $33
billion of which is from the trust fund, and $7 billion from the
general fund. As a result, funding for airport improvement will
increase by more than 50 percent without any tax increase. This will
allow allocations for commercial passenger airports, and cargo airports
to double. This money can be used to improve safety and increase
capacity, leading to more air service and lower fares.
I also want to emphasize with regard to the problem we had on slots,
again, we compromised in good faith. In Chicago, we delayed the
increase in slots, and not only did so, but also provided for more
capability for small airports to be able to have access to O'Hare.
In Washington, Reagan Airport, where the Senate was proposing 48 more
slots, we cut it in half to 24. This could allow a growing airport,
like Bloomington, Illinois, to obtain nonstop service to Reagan
National and western hubs, like Salt Lake City, to obtain nonstop
service there. So we acted in good faith there. We also sat down and,
indeed, in my office met with Members of the New York delegation and
worked out a compromise there.
So while this bill is not everything we would like it to be, it is
not everything that passed this House overwhelmingly, it is indeed a
compromise, a compromise which has extraordinary bipartisan support.
For the first time, general aviation airports will receive their own
individual allocations. The bill also increases funding for air traffic
control modernization by almost 50 percent. This money will be used to
buy radar, computers, and other navigation equipment that is needed to
ensure a safe and expeditious flight.
Indeed, beyond the money that is so badly needed, we provide
fundamental reform in this bill. We create for the first time a chief
operating office of the air traffic control system. We provide a five-
member oversight board to oversee air traffic control.
So the reform provisions in this bill are very important, along with
the increased investment required to modernize and take care of the
extraordinary expansion which we see. We have gone from 230 million
passengers a year flying before deregulation, 600 million last year,
665 million this year, and over a billion passengers flying
commercially in America by the end of this decade. That does not even
touch upon the extraordinary growth in cargo, which is projected to
more than double, having already increased by 74 percent over the past
10 years.

{time} 1130

The bill also gives State and local governments the flexibility and
the

[[Page H1011]]

discretion to increase passenger facility charges by up to $1.50. And,
again, this is a compromise. The House said $3; the Senate said zero.
We arrived at this enormously complicated scientific compromise of
$1.50.
It is important to emphasize particularly to my fiscally
conservative, like-minded colleagues that this is conservative
orthodoxy. We are returning to local government, to locally elected
airport authorities, this decision. It is not a decision being made
here in Washington. It is one that lets them make that decision. Beyond
that, these standards should allow the FAA to process PFC applications
expeditiously without first undertaking a lengthy rulemaking.
But this bill, as I have emphasized, is more than money. It deals
with modernization and reform. And while we phase out the slots, as I
have already mentioned, we do it in a way that takes into
consideration, in a compromise, the interests of the New York
delegation, the Illinois delegation, and the Virginia delegation. And
so, indeed, in that respect, it is as well a compromise.
In addition, the important safety initiatives in this bill are of
great importance, requiring the installation of collision avoidance
devices on cargo aircraft, installing emergency locator devices on
small jet aircraft, penalties for the use of bogus parts, whistle-
blower protection for the airline and FAA employees.
In the negotiation on the most contentious budgetary issues, which we
finally worked out and now have the vigorous support of both the budget
and the appropriators in the Senate on, the key elements of that
compromise are as follows: there is a strong and enforceable guarantee
that the budget resources provided each year from the airport and
airway trust fund will equal that year's trust fund receipts and
interest, as estimated by the President's budget. In other words, the
Aviation Trust Fund is unlocked, just as we did with the highway trust
fund. We now put the trust back in the trust fund.
There is a strong and enforceable guarantee that the capital
accounts, the facilities and equipment and AIP, will be fully funded
each year from the trust fund. This carries out the original intent of
the Congress in establishing the trust fund, that capital needs be met
before trust fund revenue can be used for operating accounts.
Now, there is no guaranteed general fund contribution. We gave in on
this point. Thus, the FAA will have to compete with other agencies for
its operating budget requirements. However, the program has been
structured in a way that will result in a significant general fund
contribution each year, although the exact amount will be determined by
the appropriation committees, not by us.
The House dropped its insistence on off-budget or fire walls, even
though those provisions passed this House overwhelmingly 316 to 110. In
a good compromise effort we dropped it and agreed to use points of
order to enforce the guarantees. The House Republican leadership has
promised not to waive these points of order, and I entered their
statements in the record during the debate on the rule.
The Committee on Appropriations will retain full control and
oversight over the appropriated accounts and will be able to shift
funds between the capital accounts. I am pleased that both the Senate
and House leadership have agreed to ensure that the fiscal 2001 budget
resolution fully funds the AIR 21 trust fund and general fund for the
full term of the bill. This means that there will be no reduction in
funding for Coast Guard or Amtrak. While this result is not all that
the House wanted, it is a fair compromise and one that the chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget and Committee on Appropriations also
support.
Indeed, I am again reminded of the great Henry Clay's statement that
honorable compromise is the way to get things done. Everybody loses
something, but everybody gains something as well; and that is what we
bring here today.
And, finally, I take great pride in the fact that this is a totally
bipartisan bill. When AIR 21 passed the House by an extraordinary vote,
both the Speaker, the majority leader and the minority leader voted for
it. I can again report today that the Speaker and the majority leader
on our side vigorously support this bill. It is an example of strong
bipartisan support to do what is right for the American people.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, to the weary air traveler who is spending more time
sitting in airports rather than flying on airplanes, help is on the
way. At last, our aviation system is going to get the help it needs.
With AIR 21, the money the traveling public pays in ticket taxes will
finally be dedicated solely to improving the safety and efficiency of
our aviation system. This legislation will make our skies safer,
modernize air traffic control, reduce flight delays, and boost airline
competition. This legislation will revitalize our overburdened aviation
system.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR 21) is a three-year bill that will increase aviation
investment by $10 billion over current levels, with the lion's share of
the funding going to radar modernization and much-needed airport
construction projects. The total authorized funding for federal
aviation programs for 2001-2003 will be $40 billion over the next three
years, $33 billion of which will be guaranteed from the trust fund,
while $6.7 billion will be available to be appropriated from the
general fund.
AIR 21 will benefit all sectors of the airport and airway system.

air 21 will make our skies safer

Increases the FAA's facilities & equipment budget by almost 50
percent so that the agency can modernize our antiquated air traffic
control system;
Increases investment for runways and other equipment at airports that
will enhance safety;
Provides the FAA sufficient funding to hire and retain the air
traffic controllers, maintenance technicians, and safety inspectors
necessary for the safety of the aviation system;
Creates a cost-sharing program for airports and airlines to purchase
air traffic control equipment;
Authorizes funding to improve the training of airport screeners;
Makes runway incursion prevention devices and wind shear detection
devices eligible for AIP funding;
Requires cargo airlines to install collision avoidance systems on
their aircraft;
Provides whistleblower protection for both the FAA and airline
employees so they can reveal legitimate safety problems without fear of
retaliation;
Ensures that funding is available to raise safety standards at small
airports.

air 21 improves competition

Provides substantially more money to build terminals, gates,
taxiways, and other infrastructure to stimulate competition at
airports;
Increases access and competition to Chicago O'Hare by abolishing
slots in 2002;
Increases access and competition to New York LaGuardia and Kennedy
airports by abolishing slots in 2007;
Creates 24 new slots at Washington Reagan National Airport. Twelve of
the new slots may be used for flights within the 1,250 mile perimeter;
12 may be used for flights outside of the perimeter.

air 21 preserves the environment

Increases funding for noise abatement projects;
Streamlines environmental laws;
Establishes guidelines for air tours over our national parks.

air 21 helps small communities

Increases funding for non-hub airports from $500 thousand to $1.0
million per year;
For the first time, funds general aviation airports;
Doubles the small airport fund;
Creates a new discretionary set-aside for reliever airports;
Authorizes a contract tower cost-sharing program so that small
airports can get the benefits of air traffic control services;
Creates an incentive program to help airlines buy regional jets if
they agree to use them to serve small airports;
Creates a new funding program to help small, under-served airports
market and promote their air service;
Phases out slot restrictions to provide smaller communities better
access to New York and Chicago.

air 21 improves large airports

Doubles the amount of the annual passenger funding for primary
airports (airports with 10,000 or more passengers per year);
Raises the cap on the amount of annual funding that a large airport
can receive from $22 million to $26 million;
Doubles the funding for cargo airports;
Raises the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) $1.50 so that
an airport has the flexibility to proceed on its own with those
improvement projects that cannot be funded through the Federal Airport
Improvement Program. PFC's can only be used to fund airport projects
that increase safety and competition or for noise abatement.

[[Page H1012]]

air 21 helps passengers and pilots

Reforms the management of the FAA's air traffic control system by
creating an oversight board similar to the one established in the
recent IRS reform legislation;
Strengthen the provisions of the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance
Act that was created following the Valujet and TWA 800 crashes;
Allows pilots to appeal an emergency revocation of their license to
the safety board.

air 21 reforms the federal aviation administration

Important changes are made in the management structure of the FAA to
ensure that money is spent wisely.
A management board is created to oversee the air traffic control
modernization program. The Secretary would be expected to consult with
Congress in choosing members of this board, although formal advice and
consent is not required.

air 21 restores the trust in the aviation trust fund

Ensures that aviation taxes are preserved for aviation improvements.
Funds aviation capital programs at their full levels.
Results in a general fund contribution of $6.7 billion.

AIR 21 CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FUNDING LEVELS `01-'03
[Compared to FY 2000 enacted level (dollars in millions)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted Authorized
------------------------------------ `01-`03
2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations........................................................ 5,893 6,592 6,886 7,357 20,835
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)\1\.............................. 1,896 3,200 3,300 3,400 9,900
Facilities and equipment.......................................... 2,045 2,657 2,914 2,981 8,552
Research, engineering, & development (RE&D)\2\.................... 156 237 249 255 741
---------------------------------------------
FAA total budget resources.................................... 9,991 12,686 13,349 13,993 40,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount for AIP in FY 2000 is the enacted obligation limitation, as reduced by the Government-wide across-the-
board cut contained in the FY 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The authorized level of contract authority
provided by AIR 21 for FY 2000 is $2.475 billion.
\2\ RE&D is not authorized in FY 2003. Amount shown above for FY 2003 is an estimate.

The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) requested $3.9 million to
strengthen the runway and taxiways at the McAlester Regional Airport in
McAlester, Oklahoma.
These improvements are required for the airport to accommodate C-130
aircraft associated with activities at the defense ammunition center
located in McAlester.
This is the type of project that we now expect to be constructed
under the increased AIP program.
Section 132 of the conference report allows DOT to approve 20
innovative financing projects at small- or non-hub airports for the
following types of projects: (1) Payment of interest, (2) Commercial
bond insurance, (3) Flexible non-federal share, and (4) Use of AIP
entitlement funds to service debt on an earlier terminal development
project.
The fourth proviso in this section--concerning the use of entitlement
dollars for terminal debt--was added to the final conference report in
lieu of a similar provision (included in the original House-passed air-
21 bill at Mr. Mica's request) to assist Daytona Beach International
Airport in coping with it's terminal debt service.
It is therefore my view that Daytona Beach Airport is well positioned
to be selected as an innovative financing project under section 132.
Mr. Speaker I would like to thank all the House conferees who made
such significant contributions to our deliberations. The gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Ewing), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Pease), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays),
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
I would like to thank the staff who worked so hard to ensure the
success of this legislative effort:
From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Jack
Schenendorf, Mike Strahn, Roger Nober, David Schaffer, Rob Chamberlin,
Adam Tsao, John Glaser, Chris Bertram, Sharon Barkeloo, David Ballof,
Stacie Soumbeniotis, Tricia Loveland, Colleen Corr, Michele Mihin,
Kathy Guilfoy, Alex Del Pizzo, Tricia Law, Scott Brenner, and Jimmy
Miller.
Former Committee Staff now with the FAA: Donna McLean, David
Traynham, Paul Feldman, and Mary Walsh.
From the House Legislative Counsel: David Mendelsohn and Curt
Haensel.
From the Senate: Jim Sartucci, Keith Hennesey, Mark Buse, Ann
Choiniere, Mike Reynolds, Sam Whitehorn, Kerry Ates, Brett Hale, and
Julia Kraus.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing less than a great tribute to
our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He has
been a warrior for keeping faith with the traveling public, whether
highways, transitways or airways, and for fully investing the trust
funds, the revenues that we agreed to tax people for to deposit in
trust funds for surface and air transportation; to make sure that those
funds are invested as intended in the compact between the traveling
public and its government.
He has been a champion, and I salute him for the success he has
achieved here in negotiating between the Senate and the House, the role
that we together played with the administration in coming to this
agreement, and to achieving this outcome that will result in
significantly greater investment in aviation from those taxes derived
from the traveling public.
It is also fitting that this is a tribute to former, now retired,
Senator Wendell Ford. It was my great pleasure to work with Senator
Ford for many years on aviation issues, during which I came to have a
great appreciation for his dedication to improving air travel,
capacity, safety, and security. His persistent country, down-home
wisdom and his folk humor kept us always on track and on message, and
he deserves the recognition of having this bill, ultimately this law,
named in his honor.
Aviation is the most rapidly growing sector of our Nation's economy.
It is, in fact, a $600 billion sector of our economy. It is the element
that makes America a leader worldwide in technology. Every modern
nation on the face of this earth, every industrialized country, every
country seeking to be an industrialized nation patterns its aviation
development after the United States.
They want to acquire our air traffic control technology, they want to
fly to our shores, to our airports, and operate in our airspace. They
want to be a partner with us, whether it is code sharing or in
development of new technology or investment in airports. We are the
leader. But we will not be the leader if we do not make the investments
in modernizing the air traffic control system, if we do not make the
investment in expansion of our airport capacity. We will not be able to
handle the growth that is projected toward a billion air travelers in
the U.S. airspace alone.
Today, worldwide, over a billion people travel by air, but 650
million of those travel in the U.S. airspace. That means that nearly
two-thirds of all air travel in the entire world occurs in the U.S.
airspace, and that is the safest airspace in the world. And it does not
happen by accident. It happens because year after year the FAA does its
job overseeing the airlines, the airlines do their part, and our air
traffic control system maintains safety in the air and on the ground
for aircraft maneuvering at airport terminals.
But we cannot expect to make those investments in expansion of
airside capacity, in runways and taxiways, or in the efficiency of the
air traffic control system without sustained investment, without a
dedicated revenue stream; and this legislation gives us that dedicated
revenue stream.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make just one comment about the high-density
rule which was discussed during debate on the rule. Lifting of the
high-density rule under this legislation, ultimately, in 2 years at
O'Hare, will mean new

[[Page H1013]]

service, with new economic impact at O'Hare in the amount of over $1.3
billion. It will produce net consumer benefits of well over $630
million.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, has spent long hours crafting the language we
know today as the modification of the high-density rule. And I give him
great credit for his dedication, his hard work, his perception of what
needs to be done and how to accommodate the concerns of airport
neighbors to minimize noise impact but also maximize the capacity of
this world's greatest airport, this treasure that we know as O'Hare.
The gentleman deserves great credit and appreciation from all who
travel through that airport and whose lives and livelihoods are
dependent upon it.
Affected airlines, when the HDR is ultimately lifted, will be able to
freely set schedules in cooperation with each other, with the FAA, and
with the airport. Availability of gates and air traffic control flow
management will act as controls on the number of flights a carrier will
schedule for a particular time period. Under no circumstance will the
FAA allow more departures or arrivals than controllers can safely
manage. In other words, the 130 per-hour arrival and departure rule
will remain in effect, but it will be managed in the interest of safety
not on the basis of some other considerations.
That is extremely important. This airport must be freed from these
constraints so that our national air traffic system can operate to its
maximum capacity, which it will do when, ultimately, the high-density
rule is lifted.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is an important step toward
restoring faith with the American people. This bill, the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
unlocks the aviation trust fund and ensures that we will make critical
investments in our nation's transportation system and future economic
growth and development.
The demand for aviation has grown dramatically over the last several
decades, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future. In 1998, 656 million passengers flew commercially, twice the
number that flew in 1980. Over the next ten years, this number of
passengers is expected to grow to almost 1 billion a year. In addition,
the air cargo market is growing faster than any other sector of the
aviation industry.
It is crucial that the capacity of the U.S. aviation system keep pace
with this ever growing demand and it is our job to make sure there is
sufficient funding to provide for the needed capacity. Unfortunately,
aviation funding levels have fallen short of late and demand is growing
faster than the system can handle.
We have seen evidence of this in the increasing number of delays
experienced in the last few years. In 1999, the U.S. recorded more
flight delays than in any year. Delays through October 1999 were up
22.6% over 1998. Delay is costly: in 1999 alone, delay cost the airline
industry and the air travelling public over $6 billion. If we don't act
now and ensure adequate funding for our air traffic control system
(ATC) and the nation's airports we will reach gridlock in our aviation
system.
In the U.S. the General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated the
capital development needs at the country's 3,304 airports to be $10
billion annually. The current sources of funding leave an annual gap of
$3 billion. Moreover, this estimate does not take into account the
needs that will soon arise, such as accommodating larger aircraft;
addressing airport access issues and terminal expansion; dealing with
environmental problems; and providing for technological advances, such
as GPS/WAAS.
Taking care of the airport needs alone will not be enough to ensure
that our aviation system will be able to accommodate the growing
demand. We must also make sufficient investments in our ATC system.
Modernizing the ATC system is a very demanding and costly enterprise.
The FAA operates over 30,000 pieces of equipment: 470 air traffic
control towers, 176 terminal radar control facilities (TRACONS) and 21
enroute centers (ARTCCS). The U.S. air traffic control system is the
world's most vast and complex, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. It serves half the people using commercial airlines in the entire
world. As I have said before, modernizing the ATC system is like
rebuilding your car, while driving down the freeway at 65 miles an
hour.
Modernizing our ATC system is not only important for capacity or
efficiency purposes, but for safety. Currently, the U.S. ATC system is
the safest in the world, but maintaining this level of safety will
require continued investments. As the airspace becomes more densely
populated, we will need to improve the information available to
controllers and pilots. More accurate navigation and surveillance
equipment combined with automation tools will increase the margin of
safety for every flight. Better weather detection and prediction
equipment, common situational awareness for pilots and controllers, and
improved communication systems will also raise the bar of safety in our
air traffic control system. We must simultaneously maintain the current
systems and ensure a safe transition to new technology.
Aviation safety and efficiency also requires that the FAA has the
resources to hire, train and compensate the air traffic controllers,
safety and security inspectors, and maintenance technicians to ensure
that the system is operated safely, 365 days a year. This year,
significant reductions in the operations budget of the FAA, which
affects staffing, training and travel, are making it more difficult for
FAA to inspect airlines and improve aviation safety and maintain
security. The FAA cannot sustain high levels of aviation safety and
security with such funding uncertainties and shortfalls.
AIR 21 begins to address the needs of our aviation system. This bill
will ensure that the attention and focus our interstate highway system
has received over the years is extended to aviation. As DOT Secretary
Slater has said: ``Aviation will be to the 21st Century, what the
Interstate was to the 20th.'' As we did in the 20th Century, it is time
to meet the challenges of the new Century.
AIR 21 meets four pressing challenges of our aviation system:
Enhancing capacity and access at our nation's airports; accelerating
the modernization of the air traffic control system; promoting
competition in the airline industry; and increasing safety in the
aviation system.
H.R. 1000, with its provisions on both AIP and PFC's, will help fill
the need for airport development. An AIP funding level averaging over
$3 billion annually, along with the ability to raise PFC's by $1.50 for
projects significantly reducing congestion, safety, noise or enhancing
competition, will mean that there is a balanced financing package in
place to ensure that airports will be able to meet the tremendous
growth in aviation over the next ten years. AIR 21 also establishes a
new entitlement program for general aviation airports that will help
meet the needs of smaller communities.
Modernizing the air traffic control system has been a constant
struggle for the FAA. There have been successes: the Voice Switching
and Control System (VSCS), the Display System Replacement (DSR), and
the Host and Oceanic Computer System (HOCSR) have been put in place
successfully at 20 enroute centers across this country. But too often,
other programs, like Standard Terminal Automations Replacement System
(STARS) and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), end up being delayed
and over-budget.
There is no single answer to these problems. Accordingly, H.R. 1000
proposes a number of changes to improve the acquisitions systems at the
FAA. First, by providing sufficient and stable budgets, averaging
around $2.8 billion a year for air traffic control equipment--a
dedicated revenue stream, paid for by air travellers--managers at the
FAA will be able to plan and manage programs more efficiently. Tony
Broderick, former FAA Assistant Administrator for Regulation and
Certification, asked the key question in this regard: ``We would never
expect a business to run efficiently if the funding stream fluctuated
widely, so why do we expect this of FAA managers?''
With stable funding in place, and procurement and management
flexibility for FAA managers, we will ask for more of them. An air
traffic control management board, created by this bill, will increase
the focus on FAA acquisitions managers' performance, holding them
accountable for meeting schedule and budget targets. We cannot use
problems at the FAA to justify inaction. Instead, we must make the
necessary reforms and the necessary investments in safety and air
traffic control equipment.
AIR 21 also takes steps to extend the benefits of deregulation to
more of the American

[[Page H1014]]

traveling public. Deregulation has saved air travelers billions of
dollars over pre-deregulation pricing. However, we also know that the
quality and frequency of service to some communities has declined and
that some consumers--because of single carrier dominance at major
hubs--pay too much.
This bill creates a program to help small and medium size communities
obtain and receive better air service. Secondly, it provides that large
and medium hub airports that are dominated by one or two airlines must
file a competition plan before they receive AIP grants or have a PFC
application approved. Airports have already begun looking at ways to
enhance competition through different leasing arrangements for gates,
and requiring a competition plan should accelerate that process.
H.R. 1000 also sunsets the High Density Rule at three of the four
slot-controlled airports in this country. This will help increase
competition at these airports. A 1995 Department of Transportation
study concluded that the net benefit to consumers from lifting the HDR
at these three airports would be over $700 million a year from fare
reductions and improved service. The largest benefits will be at
Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Furthermore, as more effective
air traffic management techniques are developed and new technology
introduced, these annual benefits will grow.
All of these benefits of this bill will mean nothing if we fail to
address safety issues. The funding increases in the bill will mean that
FAA will have the resources to hire, train and compensate the air
traffic controllers, safety and security inspectors, and maintenance
technicians necessary to operate the system safely on a daily basis. In
addition, funding will be set aside to help small airports enhance
their safety standards. Further, no airport will be permitted to impose
a PFC above $3 without ensuring that their ``airside'' safety needs are
being met.
AIR 21 also addresses the problem of collisions between aircraft and
other vehicles on the runway surface. H.R. 1000 would authorize $3
million annually, beginning in 2001, to ensure steady, persistent
effort to reduce these incidents. H.R. 1000 also includes important
safety legislation to provide whistle blower protection to FAA and
airline employees so they can reveal safety problems without fear of
retribution. Finally, cargo airlines would be required to install
collision avoidance devices by December 21, 2002.
AIR 21 is the bill that will allow you to say that you have honored
the agreement with a passenger who pays that tax. With your vote, you
will help ensure that the U.S. has the safest, most secure and
efficient aviation system in the world as the second century of
aviation begins to be seen on the horizon.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, to explain why this piece of legislation is a turkey
and wrongheaded.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I want to join with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) in paying tribute to the chairman of the committee. He
certainly has shown his effectiveness in getting this bill through the
process.
I suppose it is difficult in an election year for Members to vote
against projects that might show up in their districts sometime between
now and the election. In fact, I would say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), that I probably would like to have some of
the money in my own district. But, I am hoping, for a number of
reasons, that we are not going to pass the bill this year.
I would like to say this. I know that the authorizing committee
sometimes wonders where I stand. I believe that the funds that go into
a trust fund for a specific purpose should be protected and should be
used by that trust fund only for those purposes. By the same token, I
am strongly of the opinion that the trust fund or the authorizing
legislation should not be able to mandate other spending. We have a
difficult enough time in keeping our spending numbers down as low as we
can without mandating more spending. This bill mandates certain amounts
of spending.
Every time we create a new entitlement, every time we create a new
mandated spending program, we are taking every Member of this Congress
a little more out of the process of what the Constitution guarantees as
our responsibility and our jurisdiction. That process is to make
appropriations decisions for the United States Government.
This bill guarantees an appropriation of $10.5 billion for the FAA
for fiscal year 2001. The bill earmarks $6.2 billion of that amount for
capital programs, which are desirable, especially in election years.

{time} 1145

That leaves only $4.3 billion for the FAA's operating budget. The FAA
requested $6.6 billion for that appropriation. So what we are talking
about here is funding for the people that, frankly, run the safety
operations of the FAA.
This is an expensive bill. Over the past 3 years, we have
appropriated $28 billion for the FAA. Under this bill, we could be
forced to provide $40 billion. That is $12 billion more.
I know that, in the budget process, all of this spending is going to
go down as Federal expenditures. They will be scored. And those
revenues will, therefore, not be available to reduce the Federal debt,
to provide tax relief, or to address other budget initiatives.
In fact, this bill is a tax bill. This bill increases certain airport
taxes. I am not sure that this Congress wants to be on record as
increasing taxes.
Next year, a new President and a new Congress would have this much
less money to put into new initiatives to provide for the safety of
those who use airports and who fly in our airways.
Funding for airport construction grants under this bill will rise
from $1.9 billion to $3.2 billion. And if that is not enough, as I
said, the bill provides additional airport taxes, which would increase
spending by another $700 million a year. So airport spending is going
to approximately double overnight. I am not sure how wise it is to
double a budget overnight.
Now, the electronics and software companies also like this bill. And
I have no problem with them. I am not opposed to them. Those who pour
concrete and build buildings and runways are going to like this bill.
But I am concerned about the people who actually run the system, who
provide the safety, who control the airplanes, who inspect the
airplanes. I am concerned that their budget has been reduced
dramatically because of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions over what is going to happen here.
Because when this bill was before the House before it went to
conference, there was no doubt that the House strongly supported it.
But I thought it was important to make the case today that this is just
one more step toward more mandated spending, one more entitlement type
program that takes Congress out of the mix and requires money to be
spent in ways that Congress may or may not approve.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report.
This is indeed an historic occasion, and I believe that we are on the
brink of passing legislation that does more for small- and medium-sized
communities and their airports than any other aviation bill in the
history of the Congress.
In addition, this bill makes major strides towards ensuring that our
aviation system remains one of the safest and most efficient in the
world and it does so without any earmarked pork barrel type projects.
We do this by ensuring that aviation taxes paid for by passengers and
airlines on tickets and fuel will be spent for aviation purposes as
they were intended.
This has been a long, hard fight. We have been without a
reauthorization bill for the FAA for over 2 years. We have had no long-
term guaranteed funding of critical FAA programs during that time. The
AIP program has been without funding since last year.
Now, through the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster) and those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Aviation, we have guaranteed $3.3 billion of
spending from this trust fund for FAA programs through 2003.

[[Page H1015]]

This was a team effort, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe we would be
here today without the great strong and effective leadership of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). This bill is a real
tribute to him, above everyone else.
I know that some people are concerned about the spending caps. Let me
say two things about that. First, this money is desperately needed by
an aging aviation infrastructure to reduce delays and allow our already
stretched aviation system to catch up to the record number of
passengers that traveled this past year and are predicted for the
future, 656 million passengers this past year, one billion before this
decade ends.
Aviation is the cornerstone of our Nation's economy. Everyone, even
people who never fly, benefit from a strong aviation system.
Second, with respect to the spending caps, this bill still permits
annual review and oversight of aviation programs and does not alter our
current budgetary or appropriations structures. It gives the Committee
on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations the flexibility they
have asked for. In fact, both the chairman of the Senate budget and
appropriations committees voted for this very bill.
At the present, because of the willingness of everyone to work
together, this bill is more fiscally conservative than the bill that
passed this House several months ago by a vote of 316-110. At the
present rate of growth, 10 new airports the size of Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Atlanta Hartsfield, or Chicago/O'Hare would be needed to adequately
absorb the increase in air passenger traffic.
According to the Air Cargo Association, in addition to this passenger
growth, air cargo volume rose 50 percent last year and is increasing at
a rate of 2\1/2\ times the increases in air passenger traffic. With all
this growth, aviation delays are too high now and would be much higher
without a bill such as the one we have before us today.
The airlines estimate that these delays will cost them over $4
billion in the next year.
I urge strong support for this bill.
The National Civil Aviation Review Commission has predicted that if
we simply maintain the status quo, our aviation system will face
gridlock early in this decade.
With these increases in travel, it is likely that people who wanted
to fly could not fly without increased investment in aviation
infrastructure. Flights would have to be limited in the very near
future.
AIR 21 will ensure that proper investment is available to fund the
necessary improvements to our aviation system.
By 2003, the bill raises the level of FAA operations to over $7
billion, the Airport Improvement Program to $3.4 billion, and the
Facilities and Equipment account to $2.9 billion.
The increase in AIP funding will double the entitlement dollars for
primary airports, double the minimum entitlement for small airports,
and, for the first time, fund an entitlement for general aviation
airports up to $150,000.
In addition to ensuring that our nation continues to have the safest,
most secure, most efficient air service in the world, one of the most
important benefits of this new funding will be the tremendous
improvements in airport infrastructure at small and mid-size
communities.
This bill doubles the small airport fund. This will give small and
non-hub airports as well as general aviation airports more money to
meet their needs.
In addition, the bill creates a new discretionary set-aside for
reliever airports.
It authorizes a contract tower cost-sharing program so that small
airports can get the benefits of air traffic control services, and
creates an incentive program to help airlines buy regional jets if they
agree to use them to serve small airports.
It also helps small communities by creating a new funding program to
help small, under-served airports market and promote their air service.
In addition the bill increases funding for the essential air service.
Phasing out the slot restrictions at New York and O'Hare will provide
smaller communities better access to these large cities.
This provision will also act to increase competition when the slot
restrictions are fully lifted in 2002 in Chicago and in 2007 in New
York.
In addition, by providing substantially more money to build
terminals, gates, taxiways, and other infrastructure, competition will
be stimulated at other airports.
This bill also raises the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge from
$3 to $4.50. Under this provision, each local airport continues to have
the flexibility to determine whether it wants to charge this fee. By
raising the cap, the locality also can determine how much up to the cap
it wants to charge based on its individual needs. This new PFC
provision can be implemented by the FAA without the need to institute a
rulemaking proceeding.
AIR 21 also incorporates the National Park Overflights provisions
based on a bill that I introduced. These provisions represent a strong
compromise reached between all the parties involved in air tours over
national parks. The provision will ensure that both air and ground
visitors to our national parks will have the ability to experience and
enjoy our national parks. I am personally proud of the work that went
into these provisions and I thank Chairman Young of the Resources
Committee for his work on this issue also.
Finally, although everyone is talking about all the big things this
bill does, it also does a lot of little things that merit mentioning.
We have raised the fine that can be imposed on unruly passengers, to
$25,000. This will help to ensure the safety of the flight crew and
other passengers on a flight.
We have also acted to improve the training of security screeners so
that we can continue to assure the traveling public of its safety when
it flies.
We have a provision requiring collision avoidance devices on cargo
aircraft. This will ensure that cargo aircraft have similar technology
that passenger aircraft have now to avoid collisions.
And we have changed the applicability of the Death on the High Seas
Act so that it does not apply to airplane crashes within 12 miles of
the United States. This will help to ensure that victims of tragic
plane crashes over the water will have the same ability for recovery as
those crashes over land.
AIR 21 has been a bipartisan project and has resulted in a bipartisan
product that I truly believe is good for aviation.
In this bill, there is the promise of safety and efficiency in our
nation's aviation infrastructure in the years to come.
That should be a promise we all can support.
I urge you to vote yes on the conference report for H.R. 1000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska).
The Chair advises that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)
has 7 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have
a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster), and I have a great deal of respect and affection for the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He is a good friend of mine.
But I simply cannot, in good conscience, abide in any way this
legislation before us today.
Five years ago, when the majority party took control of this
institution, we were told that we were going to see a new day and that
we were going to see a high degree of fiscal responsibility and
balance. Instead, this bill for the second time throws that promise out
the window.
Two years ago, this House voted to require large increases in
spending for highways and they put that requirement ahead of every
other priority in Government.
Now, I am a strong supporter of the trust funds and I am a strong
supporter of highway construction and airport construction, but I do
not believe that that ought to be a higher priority than education,
than health care, than cancer research, than environmental cleanup,
than support for our farmers or support for our national defense. And
yet, the House voted to put highways ahead of all of those 2 years ago.
Now, today it is taking us down that path for a second time and it is
saying that our highest priority before all others is the funding of
concrete to build new airports.
Now, I want to see new airport construction. The problem with this
bill is that it pretends that it is only directing the spending of
trust fund money, but, in reality, it also directs the spending of non-
trust fund money.
Here is how it does it: It appropriates about $40 billion over the
next 3 years to the FAA. It guarantees that $3.3 billion of that will
have to be spent on bricks and mortar, on construction items. And it
leaves us in this situation: It means that, if we do not then fully
fund the remainder of that $40 billion out of non-trust fund monies in
the appropriations process, that then the operations portion of the
budget for the flying public will be severely

[[Page H1016]]

crippled and shortchanged. And, obviously, we do not want to be in the
position to do that.
The Committee on Appropriations is effectively denied by this
legislation the ability to trade off the funding that we spend for
operation versus construction by taking a bit out of the construction
portion of the budget to fund operations. And the result is that that
means that we are going to inevitably require reductions in many of the
programs I have just mentioned.
Let me explain why. I am the one of the biggest supporters I know of
for highway construction and airport construction. But this proposal
requires the 64 percent increase in just 1 year for airport
entitlements without examining competing needs in education, biomedical
research, veterans' health care, or anywhere else.
An extra billion dollars that is taken by this bill to fund airports
is a billion dollars that we cannot use to fund 3,000 NIH grants for
research and cancer and diabetes. It is a billion dollars that we
cannot provide for special education. It is a billion dollars that
prevents us from putting a dent in the $112 billion of renovation needs
of our schools. It is a billion dollars that we cannot use to fund
9,000 security officers in our schools with the worst violence and drug
problems.
What is happening is that this bill is being passed without regard to
what is happening to the budget in the Committee on the Budget. And
what is happening there is that the majority party is planning to mark
up a FY 2001 budget resolution that provides only $289 billion in
appropriation room for the coming year on the domestic side of the
ledger. That is some $25 billion below the amount requested by the
President, and it is some 2 percent below a freeze level.
Now, if we are going to provide outlays for highway and transit that
are $3 billion this year above last year and $4.8 billion, or 19
percent, above by the year 2003, that means that other cuts are going
to be required on other programs. And that seems to me that we should
not want to do that.
If we take a look at this bill, under this bill, aviation outlays
would escalate by 3 percent in 2001 and 41 percent by 2003. And all of
that is supposed to take place in the context of a budget which will
provide a cut below freeze level.
If we pass this bill today, I do not want to hear anyone who votes
for it saying that they were for making more room for cancer research
or for making more room for education or for making more room for
defense, because they will be denying the Committee on Appropriations
the flexibility that we need to try to meet all of those problems.
I would point out one additional problem with this legislation. It
allows the Senate and the President to determine what the internal
rules of the House of Representatives are going to be because it puts
into law changes in House rules. It puts into law two new points of
order that are aimed at precluding any current or future Member of the
House from offering any bill, conference report, motion, amendment, or
resolution that would alter aviation funding guarantees for the next 3
years in any way whatsoever.
Do we really believe that this institution ought to have to go to the
President of the United States to get his permission to change our
internal rules? I think that is outrageous.
It has been said that the leadership of both parties are in support
of this bill today. If that is the case, then all it demonstrates is
that the leadership of both parties are abdicating their
responsibilities to the greater prerogatives and needs of this
institution. And that is a crying shame, Mr. Speaker.

{time} 1200

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the committee.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and I would like to enter into a
colloquy with the chairman, that section 132 of the conference report
allows DOT to approve 20 innovative financing projects such as allowing
AIP entitlement funds to service debt on an earlier terminal
development project at a small or nonhub.
Am I correct in understanding that the fourth provision in this
section concerning the use of entitlement dollars for terminal debt was
added to the final conference report to assist Daytona Beach
International Airport in coping with its debt terminal service?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. MICA. Then is it the chairman's belief that Daytona Beach
International Airport is well positioned to be selected as an
innovative financing project under this program?
Mr. SHUSTER. That is correct.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pose a question to the chairman. In the
conference report's joint explanatory statement, critical language
directing the FAA administrator to ensure that all runways at civil
airports have standard runway cost safety areas in accordance with the
most cost-effective and efficient method appears out of sequence. This
language, which ensures that future AIP runway grants include
provisions of bringing runway safety areas in accordance with FAA
regulations should be included in section 514 rather than 515. Is that
the chairman's understanding as well?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report for H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
This is a historical piece of legislation that will unlock the
aviation trust fund ensuring for the first time that aviation taxes
will be used to fund aviation infrastructure needs.
The United States has the best aviation system in the world. It also
has the busiest aviation system in the world. Unfortunately, our aging
air traffic control system and our aging airports are having difficulty
keeping up with the increased demand.
That is why we need AIR 21, by guaranteeing that aviation taxes are
spent on aviation infrastructure needs. AIR 21 significantly increases
investment in our Nation's airports, runways and air traffic control
system today so that our aviation system is ready for the increased
demand of tomorrow.
Although AIR 21 increases funding for the Airport Improvement
Program, AIP, by over 50 percent, this is still not enough to fund the
many, many airport projects that are needed to prepare our national
aviation system for the 21st century.
Therefore, AIR 21 also authorizes local airport authorities to raise
their passenger facility charge from a maximum of $3.00 to up to a
maximum of $4.50. The PFC is a critical source of funding for local
airport authorities. The PFC revenues allow local airports to fund
needed safety, security, capacity, competition, and noise projects that
otherwise would have to wait for years for Federal AIP funds or may not
be eligible for AIP funds at all.
AIR 21 also helps increase competition in the airline industry in a
number of ways. Most significantly, AIR 21 phases out the high-density
rule at three of the four slot-controlled airports in the Nation.
Eliminating this artificial constraint in operations at Chicago O'Hare
in 2002 and at New York's Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports in 2007 will
provide immediate and substantial benefit for both consumers and
communities.
Today, very few new entrants, low-fare carriers, are able to serve
slot-controlled airports because it is extremely costly to either buy a
slot or go through the political process of obtaining a slot exemption.
The phaseout of the slot restrictions creates new opportunities for new
entrant airlines at these airports. These will increase competition and
lower fares for all consumers.
In addition, the phaseout encourages increased air service between
the high-

[[Page H1017]]

density airports and small communities. Also, after slots are
completely eliminated, carriers will have the scheduling flexibility to
serve more designations from these three airports. As a result,
carriers will have more opportunities to serve small and medium-sized
communities because they no longer will have to worry about using their
precious few slots on the most profitable routes.
Phasing out the slot restrictions at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia
is only one of many, many provisions in AIR 21 at improving air service
to small communities. I am particularly proud of the fact that the EAS
program has been improved, and I am particularly proud of the fact that
we address the issue of the Bilateral Aviation Agreement between the
United States and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, there are many, many more important provisions in AIR
21. I have highlighted only a few of them. I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report for H.R. 1000. It
will be a vote in favor of a strong, safe aviation system for the 21st
century.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) for yielding, and I also thank him for his good service as
chairman of the committee and solving first our surface transportation
problems and now our air transportation problems.
This bill, as presented to us, deserves passage. I am very pleased
with the contributions it will make to solving the problems in
Michigan, with the construction of the new terminal at the Wayne County
Metro Airport and also at the Grand Rapids Airport with the
construction that they have, particularly rebuilding a new runway.
I am especially pleased because I live in terror that we will have a
major mid-air collision sometime, and this bill will provide funding
for a new air traffic control system which will solve that problem. I
congratulate the chairman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Ground Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I join in commending the distinguished
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar); subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan); and the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their tremendous efforts in bringing
forward to the House today this Aviation Investment and Reform Act for
the 21st Century, AIR 21.
This measure does indeed make an investment in America, a badly
needed investment, and one that will not just benefit airport
facilities located in major cities but rural parts of this Nation as
well.
Rural parts of this Nation often neglected under this bill will have
the ability to make greater contributions to local economic development
activities, and the pending measure will help them achieve their true
potential through Federal policy changes.
In this regard, I would like to highlight two provisions that I had a
part in fashioning. The first will provide $75 million in assistance to
small airports to implement measures aimed at improving the costs and
availability of air service to consumers, including through marketing
and promotion, better use of airport facilities and air service
subsidies. The second provision makes it clear that projects
facilitating the transfer of cargo and passengers between air and
ground transportation modes are eligible for funding under AIP.
In other words, air to transit, air to freight railroads, air to
trucking facilities located on airport property can be built using
Federal aviation funds.
This provision benefits both large and smaller airports, but in
particular the small community and rural area facilities can utilize it
as a means of expanding economic development and creating jobs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the concept of intermodalism,
intermodalism, which is part and parcel of our Federal surface
transportation laws and policies, has now finally found its way into
aviation policy. I urge adoption of this report.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney), the distinguished vice chairman of the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster), our distinguished chairman, for yielding me this time.
In my brief period of time, let me just say that this is a great day
of hope for the region of the country that I represent, a region that
has been termed by the FAA as an underserviced area. This is a day of
hope because it provides the necessary and requisite Federal resources
that will give the people of that area the opportunity to connect with
the rest of the world so that we can compete economically. I want to
salute and congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. I want to thank him for the
opportunity not only to serve as vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Aviation in the Year of Aviation but also for the opportunity to have
served as a conferee on this conference.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for all his hard work
and dedication to transportation issues--without his leadership--I
don't think this body would be considering such a landmark piece of
legislation.
Legislation that improves Air Safety, improves competition, preserves
the environment, helps small communities, reforms the FAA, restores the
trust in Aviation Trust Funds, and most importantly, helps passengers
and pilots.
As the only freshman member of Congress on the Conference Committee,
I was fortunate to work so close with the Chairman and the Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan.
These two gentleman's commitment to making our skies safer and more
accessible to passengers is truly remarkable and commendable.
I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report.
Help us finish the work started by AIR-21 when the House
overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1000 last year.
This conference report will help every segment of the aviation
industry. I'd like to focus on how it will help the great state of New
York.
For example, the following small airports in my district will benefit
by having a small, but dedicated, annual revenue stream that they can
tap into to make the airport a better place for passengers and pilots
alike.
This money will allow airports to start projects like installing
runway lighting for improved safety, purchase snow removal equipment,
update the airport plans for growth.
Adirondack Regional Airport in Saranac Lake, Seneca Falls, Lake
Placid, Saratoga Springs, Glens Falls, Ticonderoga, Schroon Lake, and
Hudson.
Larger airports in New York will also benefit from this bill.
Albany International Airport, which serves my district will receive
twice as much as it did under the old funding formula.
Under this bill it will receive an additional $2 million per year.
Each year that money can go for excellent projects like navigation
aides to improve safety, runway renovations, and acquiring land to
expand safety areas.
This is the consummate Win-Win-Win conference report.
Passengers win by having improved safety and competition.
Airports win by having a larger dedicated funding stream so they
improve their facilities--which in turn helps passengers and pilots.
Airlines win because this bill takes the first step in modernizing
the air traffic control system--helping improve arrival and departures
on time--which also help passengers.
In the end, this bill will ensure that America's air transportation
system is one of the finest in the world.
Thank you again Chairmen Shuster and Duncan for all of your hard work
in bringing this bill to the floor.
I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Transportation.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H1018]]

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to my friend from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
again, on their ability to apparently pass a bill that gives their
committee jurisdiction of funding priority over everything else. My
only wish would be that their committee had jurisdiction over housing
so we could deal with what is a true need in this country.
This, in my judgment, is one of the worst bills I have seen go
through the Congress. It is wrong because of what it does within FAA.
It says the top priorities are concrete; the lowest priorities are
people.
It is plain and simple. The lowest programs for funding are air
traffic controllers, personnel who deal with safety. They compete with
other people for funding, but the people who pour the concrete do not.
The people who buy facilities and equipment do not, and we have had a
history in this agency of having a terrible time bringing any contract
in on time or in an appropriate fashion. It does the wrong thing for
FAA.
Then at the very day that the House Committee on the Budget is
meeting to deal with the budget resolution for this session, where we
hear we are going to have very tight restrictions on discretionary
spending, we are going to say the first priority above everything else
is building more runways, more runways, more important than anything
else on the agenda. That is what we are doing with this bill. More
important than other transportation priorities within our subcommittee,
that small unprotected operation is going to have to compete with
Amtrak and the Coast Guard. So if there are concerns about Amtrak or
the Coast Guard, better take another look within the transportation
area. If there are other concerns of what we are going to fund this
year, if there are priorities beyond concrete for runways, take another
look before casting what my colleagues might think is their easy vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on AIR21
for several reasons. This is a bad bill that strikes a blow at fiscal
responsibility. It continues to unfairly subsidize aviation from the
general fund. And it will not adequately address the safety and
security needs of our air traffic system.
This bill creates an unwarranted $33 billion entitlement for certain
FAA capital and facilities programs before any other national needs are
addressed. Before we consider any needs for housing, educating our
children, helping our farmers, or providing for our veterans, this bill
says fund airports first and guarantees a massive increase--46% in just
one year and 59% over 3 years--for concrete and construction. That is
wrong. It makes no sense.
In recent weeks, we have heard a lot about the need for reform of the
budget process and especially in support of biennial budgeting. I ask,
why have any budget process at all when we put highway and transit
programs on automatic pilot for six years, and we put aviation
infrastructure funding on automatic pilot for three years. What is the
purpose of having a budget process where we carefully consider
competing priorities, if one special interest after another simply
declares that spending constraints do not apply to them?
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill because it perpetuates the myth that
somehow we have shortchanged aviation needs over the years. Supporters
of AIR21 argue that we need to ``unlock'' the Aviation Trust Fund. But,
there is no evidence that aviation has been shortchanged and deserves
special treatment outside of the regular budget process.
In fact, those who travel by air have gotten far more from the
federal government than they are paying in aviation taxes, due to large
subsidies paid by taxpayers out of the general fund. Since 1991, we
have spent over $21 billion in general fund revenues for FAA
operations. In eight out of the last ten years, we have spent more on
the FAA than incoming receipts into the trust fund. The ``historical''
30% general fund share of FAA expenses that the authorizers point to
exists only because authorizing statutes have arbitrarily restricted
the use of trust fund revenues to fund the FAA.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is also a failed opportunity to
fully address the FAA's needs and to bring our air traffic control
system into the 21st century. As we speak, the FAA is struggling to
address the needs of an air traffic control system that operates 24
hours a day, seven days a week. The FAA must provide adequate training
for air traffic controllers and inspectors, and ensure that we have the
necessary security personnel to address the growing threats across the
globe.
The FAA has 170 aviation inspector positions which have remained
vacant and has cancelled most training activities. Additional funding
is required for spare parts for air traffic control equipment and to
install new state of the art equipment that sits in warehouses because
the agency lacks the necessary funding to bring them on line.
Our air traffic control will have to cope with a 66% increase in
passenger traffic by the year 2010. That means more people and planes
in the sky. Yet, AIR21 caps the amount of trust fund revenue that can
be used for FAA operations, which will require discretionary general
funds to make up the shortfall. Ironically, this bill constrains the
most essential functions of the FAA under budget caps, while completely
exempting the other 80% of the FAA's budget from any budget scrutiny at
all.
This bill does not provide a balanced approach to addressing those
needs, nor does it consider the impact of guaranteed funding for FAA
capital programs on other transportation priorities--like the Coast
Guard and Amtrak.
AIR21 would require a $1.8 billion or 46% increase next year for FAA
capital accounts, and puts at risk needed funding for Coast Guard's
operations and assets, and Amtrak capital investments.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a bill that puts aviation
infrastructure ahead of all other national priorities, and then fails
to fully address the air traffic control modernization needs within the
FAA.
I urge the defeat of the conference report.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune), a member of the committee.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that generous allotment of time.
Mr. Speaker, I know this is wrapping up. I just want to credit the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his tireless efforts to
make this bill become a reality that restores honesty and integrity to
the aviation trust fund and goes a long ways towards seeing that the
aviation taxes that are paid by passengers and airlines and general
aviation users on tickets and fuel and cargo are actually being used to
improve airport capacity and safety.
This has been a long time coming and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) has worked very, very hard to ensure that we have
unlocked this trust fund and this is going to be a wonderful thing for
many of the airports across this country; and certainly in my State of
South Dakota a lot of the rural areas are going to be very well served
by this legislation. I encourage its passage.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conferees
were able to finish their work so we now have the opportunity to vote
on this conference report. I know that this negotiation was complex and
frustrating. I want to commend my colleagues for working so hard on
behalf of the American people.
My State of Florida is keenly aware of the importance of getting AIR
21 passed and signed by the President.

{time} 1215

This comes at a critical time for our Nation's travelers as aviation
forecasts continue to show a rise in the number of passengers taking
advantage of air travel.
In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to express my
thanks for the inclusion of the Military Airport Program provisions in
this bill. This program benefits communities like Jacksonville that
suffered during BRAC. Florida's Cecil Field is a Naval Air Station
closed during BRAC and selected for the MAP program last month. MAP
helps turn former military airports over for civilian use. This is
critical for my State.
Florida has an incredible aviation demands, and Cecil Field will be
used to handle some of this growth. Jacksonville is the second fastest
growing airport in the country and Orlando International Airport
handles more than 30 million passengers a year.
Overall, I think this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to
please vote for it.
I rise in support of this conference report. I am very pleased the
conferees were able to finish their work so we now have an opportunity
to vote on this conference report. I know that the negotiations were
complex and frustrating, and I want to commend my colleagues for
working so hard on behalf of the American people. My state of Florida
is keenly aware of the importance of getting AIR 21 passed and signed
by the President. This comes at a critical time for our nation's
travelers, as aviation

[[Page H1019]]

forecasts continue to show a rising number of passengers taking
advantage of air travel.
In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to express my
thanks for the inclusion of the Military Airport Program provision in
this bill. This program benefits communities like Jacksonville that
suffered during BRAC. Florida's Cecil Field is a Naval Air Station that
was closed during BRAC and selected for the MAP program last month. MAP
helps turn former military airports over to civilian use, and this is
critical for my state.
Florida has incredible aviation demands, and Cecil Field will be used
to handle some of this growth. Jacksonville is the 2nd fastest growing
airport in the country and Orlando International Airport handles more
than 30 million passengers a year. Overall, AIR 21 provides the vital
transportation infrastructure investment that is needed to shore up
safety and security, as well as providing the economic engine that will
aid development not only in Florida, but across the nation as well. I
urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
(Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm support of a very
fair compromise bill that will help California's aviation system.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report on
H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
This Conference Report represents a fair and balanced compromise. AIR
21 will make our skies safer, reduce flight delays and increase
competition by modernizing our air traffic control systems and
improving our airports. With today's vote we have an opportunity to
give America the aviation system it deserves, one firmly based on both
safety and reliability.
Whether on television or in the newspapers we are reminded on an
almost daily basis of the shortcomings in our Nation's aviation system.
I, like so many of my colleagues have heard from many constituents who
have suffered from airline delays and are deeply concerned about air
safety. We have simply pushed our aviation infrastructure to the
limits.
The aviation infrastructure in the United States has deteriorated
because of increased usage. We can no longer afford to fail in meeting
the current and future needs of the aviation system. Last year, more
than 600 million people used air transportation as their mode of travel
and in just 10 years, that number will skyrocket to a billion. The
Conference Report on H.R. 1000 places the key to the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund back in the hands of the people who use the system, that is
to say passengers and consumers who both benefit from a more efficient
and safer aviation system.
By unlocking the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Conference Report
provides about $40 billion over the next three years for aviation
investment programs. Funding for airport improvements will increase by
more than 50 percent. This will allow allocations for commercial
passenger airports and cargo airports to double. For the first time,
general aviation airports will receive their own individual
allocations. This money can be used to improve safety and increase
capacity, leading to more air service and lower fares.
This bill will unlock the aviation trust fund and ensure that all
trust fund receipts and interest will be invested in the Airport
Improvement Program--the primary program for airport construction--and
the Facilities and Equipment Program--the chief program for air traffic
control equipment. This means that as more people use our aviation
system, more money will be invested in it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Colleagues to vote Yes on the Conference
Report on H.R. 1000. Let us give the American people the aviation
system that they both want and deserve.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend
the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
our ranking member and all of our leadership, but most especially our
chairman, who helped us to negotiate, through lots of tenacity and
commitment, this agreed upon conference report. It was not easy coming,
but we are very grateful for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, today is where aviation is growing the fastest of any
other method of transportation, and it really is an economic engine for
practically every community where it exists, and most especially mine.
This is the only way that we have goods and services moving at all
times, and it has enabled us to enjoy the most prosperous time in our
history. We have to attribute much of that to aviation.
Numerous jobs have been created because of our ability to move people
very rapidly around the world, and all of us know what happens when
jobs disappear. That is when we will need many more services spent in
other ways, where most of us really do desire to be independent. This
is a mode of transportation that really does it.
I understand clearly about distribution of funds. But when funds are
collected from a particular industry with a commitment that those funds
go back to that industry, then I think it is only fair and it only
shows integrity when that is what happens to the funds.
With the passage of the facility fee, this is not distributed to
everyone, only those passengers that use the service, and we need the
improvements. That is one clear and fair way to get them.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), a distinguished Member of
our subcommittee.
(Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
House Resolution 1000. Like many Members of this House, each Friday I
board an airplane and travel to my district. My expectations for this
weekly commute are similar to my constituents who regularly travel for
business. I want to take off in a timely manner and be assured that all
safety features are working accordingly.
This bill will help to create this peace of mind for all travelers.
First of all, safety equipment such as windshear detection apparatus,
runway incursion prevention devices and enhanced vision technologies
will be eligible for airport improvement funding.
This type of comprehensive approach to airline safety is crucial for
both improved safety and better spending practices.
Last year, $15 million was appropriated to purchase new approach
lighting systems for airports whose systems were 20 years old and
older. However, no money was appropriated for the installation of these
lighting systems. As a result, we have airports which need these runway
lights, but will be forced to continue to wait for them until funds can
be appropriated.
In addition to serving on the Aviation Subcommittee of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I also am a member of the
House Science Committee. On behalf of Science Committee Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella, I wish to
thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Aviation Subcommittee
Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Lipinski, for their cooperation to
incorporate many of the provisions of H.R. 1551, the Civil Aviation
Research and Development Authorization Act of 1999 into Title IX of the
Conference Report that we are considering today.
Overall, Title IX authorizes $237 million in Fiscal Year 2001 and
$249 million in FY 2002 for the projects and activities of the FAA's
Research, Engineering and Development account. This represents an
increase of roughly 35% over the FY2000 enacted level. Investing in
aviation research and technology today is important to ensure that our
aviation system meets the growing demands of the future, while
enhancing safety.
I also wish to point out that during the Science Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1551 last spring, I successfully offered an
amendment to direct the FAA to place a greater priority on the non-
structural components of its current aging aircraft research and
development portfolio. The non-structural components of aging aircraft
include electrical wiring, hydraulic lines and certain other electro-
mechanical systems. Of the funding for projects and activities that
comprise FAA's aging aircraft research and development portfolio, less
than ten percent is targeted to address non-structural issues. I am
very pleased that today's Conference Report includes my amendment to
H.R. 1551 and I wish to thank the House and Senate Conferees for their
support of my efforts in this area.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I know this bill is going to
pass, and I understand that politics is the art of compromise, but this
should not be the body of broken promises. Back in 1986, Congress made
an iron-clad commitment that it would never increase the number of
slots at Washington National Airport and it would never break

[[Page H1020]]

the perimeter rule of 1,250 miles beyond Washington National Airport.
Yet today we break that promise.
The Washington region, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia fulfilled its
part of the bargain. It said we will fund the airports and be
responsible for their administration and redevelopment. We fulfilled
our part of the bargain, and now Congress breaks its part of the
bargain.
It is wrong. I know what happened, I know the guy that is
responsible. But it is irresponsible for us to do this. We ought not
set a tradition of breaking promises. Our word ought to be good. We had
an iron-clad agreement. This breaks that agreement by adding 24 more
slots, 12 of them beyond the perimeter rule. Those slots should be at
Dulles Airport, not at National Airport, and that is why I have to vote
against this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), who serves on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure with distinction.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and the
ranking member for their diligent work in making sure that this bill
came to pass, this conference report. I rise in its support. It is
critical to Idaho, not only the general aviation airports, but also to
the commercial airports in Idaho.
Unlike the previous speaker, I am very pleased that we have decided
to extend the perimeter rule at Washington National Airport to those of
us in the Western United States. It is critical. I hope that some of
those slots that will be made available will be made available to the
inter-mountain region's most important airport in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member Oberstar on the success of their determined efforts to
enhance our nation's commitment to a safe and effective air
transportation system.
Not only does this Conference Report provide landmark funding levels
for augmenting and modernizing airport facilities, its multi-year
reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program breaks the cycle of
short-term reauthorizations that has made safety- and capacity-
enhancing projects at airports such as the Boise Air Terminal in my
district needlessly difficult and costly.
Particularly important to the citizens of rural districts such as my
own are the provisions which guarantee AIP funding for general aviation
airports for the first time. These small facilities represent the
backbone of Idaho aviation, and this legislation secures them the
flexibility of funding they need to continue to play a vital role in
agriculture, firefighting, and wilderness access in my district.
Another aspect of the conference report which I and many fellow
Western members strongly support is the provision which allows
exemptions for underserved communities to the current Perimeter Rule at
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I commend the conferees on
creating a process which I believe fairly balances the interests of
states inside the Perimeter and those of us from Western states without
convenient access to Reagan National.
With 12 new slots at Reagan National, this report represents a slight
loosening of the restrictive conditions that prevail at one of our
nation's most important airports. These limited exemptions to the
perimeter rule from hubs like Salt Lake City will improve service to
the nation's capital for dozens of Western cities beyond the
Perimeter--while at the same time ensuring that cities inside the
Perimeter are not adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair
balance which is consistent with the overall intent of the bill to
improve air service to small and medium-sized cities.
Throughout consideration of this bill, our goal has been to ensure
truth in budgeting for the Aviation Trust Fund and to improve air
service for communities which have not experienced the benefits of
deregulation to the same extent as larger markets. By refusing to
accept a short-term reauthorization of FAA programs that would have
interrupted the momentum for these much-needed reforms, Chairman
Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar have achieved a remarkable success.
Airports are key components to our regional economies and critical
links to the world outside our communities. I support the Aviation
Investment and Reform Act because it protects the investments we have
made in these important facilities, and helps underserved communities
take full advantage of the benefits of our nation's air transportation
system. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), an aviator and strong
advocate for aviation.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lipinski) for their leadership. I have a lot of
confidence in them. The times we have talked and traveled together, we
talked about this thing; I know they are in the game and are concerned
about this fact that we have got tremendous demands for increased
traffic, both in people, personnel and freight. And we have got to deal
with it, and we appreciate that.
Airport improvements, ATC equipment, longer runways, terminals,
whatever, the infrastructure has got to be there to accommodate these
things. But I am concerned about the people. I know these gentlemen are
too. I do not even have to ask, I know they are. I think that was one
of the things we fell a little short in.
I am going to support this, but I am going to expect me to be
diligent and continue to watch this side of it, and I know that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) will, as will the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), that we watch this to be sure
that this does not get pushed back somewhat. So I trust we can do that.
The question of slots is worrisome. Ms. Garvey, the Secretary of
Transportation, says this is not a safety problem. They can work with
this. Folks from our part of the country, we need some help and relief.
I also have confidence that we will continue to work on that.
Advanced out to 2007, I hear people already working on trying to
advance it out even further, so we have to be watching for this very
much. I trust that we will.
So let us support this. Let us grow aviation. It is very important to
our country's economy. Let us get on with it. I look forward to
continuing dialogue on these things that I am a little bit worried
about.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriators come to the floor fulminating that we
have made aviation the highest priority. ``Before all others,'' they
said.
Well, not before all other issues that have a trust fund. Housing
does not have a trust fund. If it did, we would be advocating the same
thing. My good colleague from Minnesota said he would like to put other
issues in the care of our committee. Give them to us. We will deal with
them. But it does not have a trust fund, housing.
This does have a trust fund, and what we are simply doing is keeping
faith with the traveling public, who agreed to be taxed for a specific
purpose. All increases come from spending the taxes and interest out of
the trust fund.
What the Committee on Appropriations would argue here is that they
should be allowed to hoard those dollars in the budget, hold the trust
fund hostage, in order, as one conferee from the other body said in the
course of our debate in the conference, so we could fund Amtrak. They
want to fund Amtrak out of the surplus they want to keep in the
Aviation Trust Fund.
That does not keep faith with the traveling public. We have taken
care of Amtrak, goodness knows, in this committee and in the Committee
on Ways and Means, giving them $2.3 billion in previously-earned tax
benefits from their predecessor railroads.
What this legislation does in fact with respect to the general fund
is cut in half the general fund historic contribution to aviation, from
36 percent to 18 percent. All the rest is funded out of the trust fund.
If you want to say we would like to hold that trust fund, we would
like to build up a surplus so that with that surplus we can fund other
things, then be honest with the public and say that. But do not come
and cry crocodile tears about priorities that are supposed to be set by
the Committee on Budget and by the Committee on Appropriations itself.

[[Page H1021]]

My dear friend from across the water, with whom I differ on maybe one
or two issues, called this a ``turkey of a bill.'' Well, I want to say
to my good friend that domesticated turkeys today do not fly, and his
constituents will not either if we do not pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, there are over 100 trust funds and other special funds
in the Federal budget. Should we put all of them ahead of cancer
research, ahead of education, ahead of defense, ahead of other national
priorities? I think not.
I am all for the trust funds. I am all for the trust funds, but I am
not for placing this particular trust fund ahead of every other need of
government. That is unfair. It is not right to have a 41 percent
increase in 3 years for this program, while cutting all other domestic
appropriations by $25 billion, as the Committee on Budget intends to
do.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say to my good friend
that the issue is not trust funds. The issue is whether we should have
trust funds at all. That is a different debate. If you do not want
trust funds, abolish them all and make everything subject to general
revenues. But we do have a trust fund, and we are keeping faith.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether we favor trust funds. We do
favor trust funds. The issue is whether we ought to abuse trust funds
and in the process leverage other spending outside of the trust fund.
That is the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, before I speak in opposition to this bill, let me
congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their effective work.
This bill creates a new entitlement, and what the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said and others about trust funds are
true. But what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said with regard
to cancer research and others is also true. It also hurts the FAA
operations fund. So when you are flying into that airport, it will
suffer. It helps concrete. This is a pro-concrete bill.

{time} 1230

It also hurts the Coast Guard. I think if my colleagues like the
Coast Guard, the Coast Guard will suffer more; and frankly, I think the
Coast Guard and Admiral Loy ought to get out of the Department of
Transportation and get into some other department, like the Department
of Defense. They will suffer no matter what anyone says.
It undermines the budget process. It undermines the budget process.
Lastly, why do we not get a committee to come and say, we want to
increase funding for cancer? Well, let us find a cure for cancer or
reduce cancer deaths by 50 percent by the year 2010. Let us put the
money into reducing or finding a prevention for Alzheimer's. Let us put
the money in for diabetes research.
This is a bad bill. It undermines the budget process; it distorts the
priority of where this Congress ought to be. To the poor and the hungry
and those like that, it says forget it, you do not have the lobbyists
and you are not here.
Lastly, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) said, it creates
what I call the aluminum policy for National Airport. Do not say it is
not a safety issue to add slots there at National Airport. Do not
forget the airplane crash that took place there when people died when
it hit the 14th Street Bridge. My colleagues are breaking their
promise. Many of you who were here who voted for that policy are now
breaking your promise. They want to stuff in as many airplanes as they
possibly can from wherever they can. This is just the beginning.
So I would say to my colleagues who are listening, unless you are
already committed, vote no on this bill. It hurts the poor, it hurts
the Coast Guard, it goes for concrete. Let us put into cancer research,
let us put it in diabetes research, let us put it in Alzheimer's
research. By doing this we will undermine the budget process, and it
will make it harder for us to do what the American people want us to
do. Vote no on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, history tells us that in good budgetary times it is very
difficult for the budget process to keep a tight rein over federal
spending. We see happening now a repeat of what happened during the
late 1800's. During that time, various legislative committees convinced
the Congress that the stingy ways of the Appropriations Committee had
to be changed, that we needed to spend a lot more to make the country
grow.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we did spend a lot more when we let the
authorizing committees make those decisions, and we're doing it all
over again. This bill spends an extra $12 billion over the next three
years, compared to the past three. And some programs will get
astronomical raises.
For example, the airport grants program will get $3.2 billion next
year--a 64 percent increase in one year. Air traffic control
modernization will get almost 30 percent more next year. Now, I agree
there are needs out there, and that air traffic continues to rise. But
the increases in this bill are uncalled for. FAA doesn't even know how
to spend all of this money, if you look at their existing long-range
plan. So we're really throwing money at them in this bill.
The bill also puts a priority on airport construction and equipment
renovation, to the detriment of FAA's day-to-day operations, which I
think is a dangerous shift in Congressional priorities. In some past
years, the Appropriations Committees have reduced FAA's capital
programs in order to fully fund their day-to-day operations, and that
has made some contractors and businesses unhappy. That is because we
put a priority on the smooth, safe functioning of the agency.
By contrast, this bill raises and locks in funding for the capital
programs, and leaves FAA's operations out in the cold, begging for
whatever remaining funds we can find. Members should not be surprised
if we come up short, because we first have to fund the significantly
increased guaranteed programs. We can't protect the operating budget
anymore, because this bill takes that flexibility out of the
appropriations process. In fact, this bill even takes that flexibility
out of the hands of the Congressional leadership, by amending the Rules
of the House to tie their hands as well.
The creation of new ``guaranteed'' programs continues a troubling
trend. A few years ago we created new mandatory programs in the
agriculture appropriations bill. Then in 1998 we walled off highway and
transit spending. And now we're adding to that list most of our
aviation programs. Of course, in each case we increase the funding,
because that's the reason for doing it in the first place. Each time we
do this we make a small constituency happy, but we make our job here
infinitely more difficult, because we make the real discretionary
budget smaller and smaller.
Then, when we want to begin new initiatives, like putting more police
on the street, increasing education grants, or fighting a more intense
war on drugs, we have to dip into the surplus to do it because we have
effectively shrunk or walled off so much of the discretionary budget
that we have no choice.
And this agreement is especially bad for the Washington metropolitan
area. It breaks a commitment made to the area many years ago when we
transferred the operation of Dulles and Reagan National airports from
the federal government to a local authority. I worked with then
Transportation Secretary Dole and others to come up with a finely tuned
package that put decision-making for these two airports in the local
community and provided the authority with bond financing to make
airport improvements.
That package also established the perimeter rule and a limit on
slots, or the number of daily takeoff and landing operations, at Reagan
National. That rule essentially allowed the orderly development of
Dulles and Reagan National airports, by limiting the length of flights
which could be taken from Reagan National. That led to the enormously
successful development of Dulles International Airport in my district--
a development which might not have occurred without the perimeter rule
in place.
By adding 24 daily slots at Reagan National and allowing some of
those to fly beyond the perimeter, this conference report is starting
down a slippery slope which could undermine the delicate balance
between these two airports and choke off the economic expansion at
Dulles and the surrounding community. This is a very bad decision, and
much like our

[[Page H1022]]

changes to the Wright amendment at Dallas Love Field a couple of years
ago, sends the message to local communities that they shouldn't depend
on the federal government keeping its word.
The commitment to the local community in providing a local authority
to operate these airports and in setting slot and perimeter rules was
also made because of safety and noise concerns to prevent Reagan
National from having a so-called ``aluminum skies'' policy with
unlimited flight operations. This conference report breaks faith with
the local community and I cannot support it.
This is a very bad bill, for the Congress as an institution, for FAA
employees--who are now relegated to the margins of the budget process--
and for other federal programs which must pay for the additional
programs in the bill. It is a good bill for the pork barrel, and a bad
bill for sound federal policy.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there can be different opinions, but
facts are difficult things to change. There are certain facts that need
to be said. First of all, it is a fact that we are talking about
aviation trust fund money paid for by the users that we say should be
spent, and if we should not spend it, we ought to reduce the tax.
Secondly, as a result of unlocking the aviation trust fund, and get
this, because this is a fact, not an opinion, the amount of general
fund money required will be reduced rather than increased. In fact, it
will be about cut in half, because of the portion of the money that
comes from the trust fund. So by reducing the historic amount of
general fund of money required, we are actually freeing up more general
fund money for the Coast Guard and any other general fund expenditure;
and indeed, those are expenditures that many of us vigorously support.
Thirdly, there is no tax increase here. What there is here, and
certainly my conservative colleagues should embrace this, we are
returning to the local authorities, to the locally elected officials
the decision as to whether or not they should increase passenger
facility charges. We do not increase them by one penny here; we give
that authority to the local elected officials.
With regard to this building concrete, less than half of the money
going into this bill will be for concrete. I in no way denigrate the
importance of concrete, because we need more runways, we need more
terminals. However, more than half of this money will indeed go to F&E,
will go to operations, will go to improved air traffic control to make
it safer so that we can have safer landings not only in good weather,
but in bad weather as well.
This bill, when it came through the House, passed overwhelmingly, 316
to 110, with the Speaker of the House, the minority leader, the
majority leader all supporting it. We went and negotiated with the
Senate, and what we bring back to the House is less than that which
overwhelmingly passed this House with strong majorities on both sides
of the aisle. That compromise, which we admit is less than the bill
that passed this House overwhelmingly, that compromise passed the
Senate 82 to 17. It passed the Senate with the strong support of the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, who originally had
been opposed to the House bill; with the strong support of the chairman
of the Senate Committee on the Budget, who originally opposed the House
bill; with the strong support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, who originally
opposed the bill. We negotiated a compromise, and we are so thankful
and appreciative that those people looking out for those other
interests in the Senate were able to meet us halfway. We like to think
we gave more than halfway; but that I guess is debatable, the point
being we did compromise.
Mr. Speaker, we bring a bill the American people need. We bring a
bill that must be passed or our aviation system will be hurtling toward
gridlock and potential catastrophes in the sky. Let us pass this and
send it down to the President, who, I understand, has said will sign
this legislation enthusiastically.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Conference agreement on H.R. 1000, the ``Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century.'' I am especially pleased that the
Conference agreement included 12 new perimeter rule exemptions at
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
As a representative from the State of Washington, my constituents
will directly benefit from this common sense provision to ensure
fairness for all Americans. It is essential that the Department of
Transportation ensures that this new service is evenly distributed
among carriers and cities to make certain that the maximum number of
communities benefit from these new flights.
Mr. Speaker, it is especially important that small and midsize
communities gain improved access through hubs such as Salt Lake City.
We must guarantee that these important slot exemptions are not simply
accessed by a few large cities for non-stop point-to-point service, so
that citizens living throughout the West will benefit from these much
needed slots via connections at Western hubs such as Salt Lake City.
Currently, many passengers from small and medium-sized communities in
the West are subject to double and often triple connections in order to
reach Reagan National Airport. Adding new service from hubs like Salt
Lake City will improve service to the nation's capital for dozens of
cities throughout the west. This supports the overall objective of the
legislation, which is to improve air service to small and medium-sized
cities nationwide.
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to underscore the need
for a broad distribution of the perimeter rule exemptions. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation and encourage the Department of
Transportation to ensure the equitable distribution of the new service
beyond the perimeter rule.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization, or AIR-21,
bill. Within this bill, the high-density rule (HDR) at LaGuardia and
J.F.K. Airports in New York City will remain intact until 2007. As you
know, the HDR limits the number of take-offs and landings at these
airports.
Continuation of the HDR, particularly at the already congested
LaGuardia Airport, was vital to my constituents, who are afflicted with
constant noise. Additionally, there are safety concerns due to the
already crowded airspace and the redirection of flights to accommodate
more enplanements.
In June of this year, the Queens Congressional Delegation led the
fight in the House of Representatives to preserve the HDR at LaGuardia
and JFK Airports in AIR-21. Together, with the other Members of
Congress representing the New York City metro and tri-state areas, we
successfully fought to save the slot restrictions from immediate
elimination, and, in fact, extended the HDR to the year 2007. This was
a major victory for the neighbors of our airports and those of us who
represent them in Congress and who have fought to keep the HDR in
place. The result will be safer and quieter skies for the New York City
Metropolitan area and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, I personally live beneath the flight path of airplanes
taking off and landing at LaGuardia Airport. This makes me understand
the frustration and angst of my constituents over the duration and
volume of the noise when planes take-off and land. Noise from incoming
planes can drown out the TV, a phone conversation, and even shake your
windows.
I have been advocating on behalf of the community surrounding
LaGuardia Airport for the past 13 years, first as a State Assemblyman
and now, as a Member of Congress. I was honored to work with Chairman
Shuster on this bill, particularly because he appreciates the concerns
of myself, the Queens delegation, and our constituents. Working
together with Congressman Oberstar, Chairman Duncan and Congressman
Lipinski, we forged the language found in today's bill regarding the
continuance of the HDR at LaGuardia Airport.
On behalf of all the New York City residents affected by aircraft
noise, I strongly support this conference report and urge my colleagues
to support passage of AIR-21.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1000--the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the Twenty-first
Century. Although I am in strong support of the overall bill and the
benefits it will provide to American aviation, I would like to draw my
colleagues' attention to a particular aspect of the bill.
On September 2, 1998, two hundred thirty-one (231) people lost their
lives in the tragic crash of Swiss Air Flight 111 off the coast of Nova
Scotia. This tragedy struck my district when the Rizza family of
Newington, Connecticut learned of Victor Rizza's untimely death and
began to cope with the loss of a beloved member of their family. Since
the date of the crash, the Rizza family, along with many of the other
families affected by this disaster, have been stymied in their efforts
to recover fair and just compensation for the losses that they have
sustained due to the onerous and outdated provisions of an ancient
shipping statute known as the Death on the High Seas Act.
This act denies families the ability to recover non-economic damages
in a lawsuit. This

[[Page H1023]]

means that a family member could not be compensated for the loss of
their sons and daughters; sons and daughters could not be compensated
for the loss of their elderly parents.
Section 404 of this legislation addresses this gross unfairness by
amending the Death on the High Seas Act to allow for the recovery of
non-economic damages. Although this legislation is not flawless, it is
a step forward in bridging an existing gap in our system of
compensation for those who have lost loved ones in aviation disasters.
While the existing statute recognizes the rights of those persons who
are economically dependent upon family members lost in aviation
accident, this new legislation recognizes the rights of parents,
children, siblings and other family members who are dependent upon
those lost in aviation disasters for care, comfort and companionship.
Specifically, this legislation allows these individuals to recover
just compensation in aviation accidents for the loss of a loved one's
care, comfort and companionship.
Athough this legislation cannot fully restore the lives of those
affected by the loss of a loved one in an aviation disaster, it is an
improvement upon their lives by compensating them for the void
resulting from the unbearable loss of a family member.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I voted today for H.R. 1000, the Aviation
and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, because airport
expansion is important to our national economy and the local economies
surrounding each airport. In my district, Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport is a tremendous asset to the people of Cleveland
and Northeast Ohio. However, the value of Hopkins to business and
recreational travelers, as well as the resource economy of the Greater
Cleveland area, must be balanced to protect residents living near the
airport, or who are otherwise affected by Hopkins operation and
expansion.
Many issues have arisen at Hopkins, including the failure to look at
other alternatives, the significant noise impacts from increased air
traffic, and finally environmental concerns that include water quality,
air quality, hazardous waste, and wetlands.
The current approach to Hopkins expansion assumes that Cleveland
Hopkins International Airport will continue to be the sole airport
serving all the needs of passengers and air cargo traffic for the next
twenty years. Any expansion plans must include regional planning that
considers use of already existing resources, including greater use of
Burke Lakefront Airport, the Akron/Canton Regional Airport, and other
local airports, as contributors to Northeast Ohio's air transportation
mix. The Greater Cleveland business community criticized the Hopkins
expansion proposal for its failure to include simultaneous operations
under poor weather conditions. Greater use of other airports will allow
for simultaneous runway operations under conditions of poor visibility.
Communities near Hopkins are already over-burdened with airport and
train noise. The current Hopkins expansion proposal fails to consider
the cumulative effects of the noise burden to neighboring communities.
The Hopkins expansion proposal needs to consider greater use of other
area airports to alleviate additional noise in the direct flight path,
affecting Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, and Cleveland Wards 21, 20,
and 19.
If the FAA approves the expansion as proposed, a displaced threshold
must go into effect to protect communities in the flight path as a
superior alternative than the fan-out procedure recommended in the
DEIS. The displaced threshold would protect surrounding communities
such as Bay Village, Berea, Brook Park, Fairview Park, Lakewood, North
Olmsted, Parma, Parma Heights, Rocky River, Strongsville, and Westlake,
by preventing the need for the fan-out. The FAA must also focus on
beefing up its noise prevention procedures, such as noise monitoring
and Noise Abatement Departure Procedures.
Greater attention must be focused on clean-up of hazardous materials
buried at Hopkins and the NASA Glenn Research Center, the proposed site
of a new 5L/23R runway. Costs must also be considered: the public needs
to know how much such a cleanup is going to cost.
Wetlands have important features that help protect the environment by
filtering out runoff and contributing to biological diversity. The
federal policy on wetland protection is to first avoid impacting
wetlands, then minimize the effects, and finally, if no alternative is
available, to mitigate by restoring other wetland areas. Current
expansion plans make no attempt to avoid or minimize the loss of 87.75
acres of wetland and 7900 linear feet of Abram Creek. Alternatives that
avoid wetland loss, such as greater use of other airports, must be
considered. If mitigation is the only alternative, a full accounting of
how, and at what cost, these resources will be mitigated. Expansion
proposals must account for how culverting Abram Creek will affect the
water quality of the Rocky River and Lake Erie, explain how it will
remediate these effects, and how much it will cost the taxpayers.
Alternatives must be considered that will minimize the contributions
to the poor air quality that already exists and that will increase with
an expanded Hopkins.
Once these issues are resolved, further expansion at Hopkins will be
achievable, and the landmark legislation passed today will ensure
funding can be made available.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that you tend to get sick
every time you fly? Many of us who are frequent flyers, know that the
air on commercial flights is stale and poorly ventilated, and in some
cases, it really does seem to make you ill. Though hundreds of flight
crewmembers have reported hundreds of separate incidents of unexplained
headaches, blurred vision and other health problems, no one has closely
looked into this problem.
Health risks associated with poor air quality in airplanes include
exposure to toxins, airborne viruses, and ozone. These risks are
worsened by the fact that passengers do not breathe fresh air on
flights, but instead inhale re-circulated ``bleed air'' that passes
through the engine.
Passengers should be able to feel confident that they are not
endangering their health when they fly to visit friends and relatives
or as they arrive and depart from business trips. Airline industry
workers should not feel their health is threatened as they earn a
living. We must learn the nature and extent of the health risks that
are associated with poor cabin air quality so that the problem can be
corrected.
After learning of the potentially dangerous health risks for frequent
flyers and flight crewmembers, I urged the AIR-21 conferees during
negotiations to include a study of the air quality on commercial
flights in this bill. I am pleased that the conference report calls for
a comprehensive, 12-month study into the air quality of commercial
airplane flight cabins. The independent study, to be undertaken by the
National Academy of Sciences, will look into the contaminants to which
flight crew and passengers are exposed, as well as the consequences of
using engine and auxiliary ``bleed air'' as air sources. This study is
long overdue.
The AIR-21 conference report also provides for a one-year study into
the effects of helicopter noise on individuals in densely populated
areas. As a representative of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, I have
heard the pleas from many of my constituents who have been plagued by
the daily disruption of helicopter noise. It is time for the FAA to
investigate the harm this noise inflicts upon residents and develop
procedures to reduce helicopter noise as much as possible.
The conference report addresses important safety concerns, as well as
the growing capacity and infrastructure demands of the aviation
industry. That is why I urge my fellow colleagues to support it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a number of provisions
included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21),
including Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) and a study on
helicopter noise. Unfortunately, I am voting against the legislation
because it provides federal aviation programs budgetary protection not
afforded to other equally vital federal programs.
I strongly support the ELT section included in this conference report
and thank the House and Senate conference committees for including this
life-saving provision.
On December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 31, of
Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, Connecticut
lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New Hampshire
Airport. Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state
and local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, a number of
extremely well organized ground searches failed to locate the two
gentlemen or the airplane until November 1999--almost three years
later.
The disappearance of the Learjet on Christmas Eve was a true tragedy.
In my judgment, what is particularly frustrating about this situation
is that had the plane been equipped with a moderately-priced location
device, the plane may have been found quickly. While current law
requires most planes to be equipped with an ELT, there are several
exceptions.
For this reason, together with the rest of the Connecticut
Congressional delegation and Congressman Neal of Massachusetts, I
introduced H.R. 267, to require ELTs on fixed wing aircraft, with a few
exemptions, including planes used by manufacturers in development
exercises, agricultural crop planes, acrobatic show planes and large
commercial planes which already have on-board technology to be quickly
located.
In a tragedy--where time can play the difference between life and
death--it is critical aircraft are equipped with locating devices

[[Page H1024]]

necessary to find the plane and its passengers.
I am extremely grateful for ELT provisions--which will save lives and
funds spent on expensive search efforts--are included in the conference
report today.
I also strongly support helicopter noise study provisions included in
the conference report. I understand frustration with aircraft noise. It
is loud and disruptive. The noise level can be overwhelming, and
diminishes quality of life. I have been working for many years with
officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and local
residents, to control aircraft noise in Fairfield County.
During consideration of the House-passed version, a provision I
supported on helicopter noise was included in the manager's amendment
to H.R. 1000. I am glad to see the conference report retains this
provision to require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a one-
year study on the effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise on
individuals and develop recommendations for noise reduction. In order
to combat noise pollution from helicopters it is imperative we
understand how it is affecting individuals and how to best reduce it.
On budgetary reasons, I cannot, however, support this conference
report. AIR-21 authorizes approximately $40 billion over three years
through fiscal year 2003 (FY 03) for airport improvements, air traffic
control and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. Of this
amount, $33 billion is allocated from the aviation trust fund and $7
billion will be ``available for appropriation'' from the general fund.
While I am pleased the conference report does not take the aviation
trust fund off-budget, I do not support establishing a series of
parliamentary points of order designed to guarantee authorized funding
levels for aviation.
As someone who uses flies on a weekly basis, I understand the
importance of a safe, efficient aviation system. But, I oppose
affording aviation special protections not given to other important
programs. In my judgment aviation programs should have to compete for
funds in the overall budget, just as education, healthcare, elderly
services and veterans programs are required to do.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I
rise in strong support of H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century. I also want to commend Chairman Shuster and
the Transportation Committee staff for their tireless efforts to
improve the safety and efficiency of the nation's aviation system. As
the number of Americans using our national airway system continues to
increase, it is essential that we provide the necessary tools and
resources to make air travel as safe and efficient as possible. Today,
the House is considering legislation that will do just that. H.R. 1000,
the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, makes
great strides toward improving passenger safety and reducing delays in
our nation's aviation system.
America's skies are becoming increasingly crowded and, with aging
radar and computer systems, passenger safety would have ultimately been
at risk. AIR-21 takes the necessary steps to keep our skies safe by
providing a $40 billion investment in America's aviation infrastructure
designed to increase passenger safety and reduce flight delays.
In addition, AIR-21 will produce a greater return on Oklahoma's
investment to the Aviation Trust Fund. Oklahoma's three primary
airports--Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City, Tulsa
International Airport, and Lawton-Ft. Sill Regional--as well as 75
general aviation airports throughout Oklahoma, will see a significant
increase in their funding. This increased funding will be used to
improve the infrastructure and safety of Oklahoma's aviation system by
upgrading equipment, modernizing computer systems, and improving
landing strips across the State. These much needed improvements will
attract future aviation industry to Oklahoma which will, in turn, bring
more jobs to the citizens of our State.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to enable significant
improvements to the aviation system in the United States and ensure the
safety of America's skies. I am honored to have the opportunity to play
a role in making these significant improvements possible by casting my
vote in favor of H.R. 1000. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House
to join me in support of this very important legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support
for the conference report on AIR-21. This conference agreement is a
product of hard fought negotiations by the conferees and it deserves
our support.
The needs of our aviation system are great and last summer's delays
were an obvious reminder of how bad things will get as the number of
people traveling by air increases. AIR-21 addresses these needs by
authorizing record levels of funding and by returning the aviation tax
dollars to the aviation system. Through these investments air travel
will be safer, competition between airlines will be improved and the
level of confidence in the management of the FAA will be raised.
As a conferee, I supported the provisions which allow exemptions to
the current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. However, I want to make it clear that these limited exemptions
must benefit citizens throughout the West. It should be clear that this
very limited number of exemptions must not be awarded solely or
disproportionately to one carrier or one airport. I expect that the DOT
will ensure that the maximum number of cities benefit from these 12
slots.
Closer to home in Alaska, AIR-21 will provide great benefits. With
over eleven hundred airports, seaplane bases and aircraft landing
areas, Alaska has the largest number of general aviation airports in
the U.S.
Because Alaska does not have a comprehensive road system, Alaskans
must use air travel for tasks we take for granted, such as grocery
shopping and medical care. The passage of AIR-21 will make flying in
Alaska safer. For the first time general aviation airports will have a
dedicated funding source that complements the airport improvement
program to improve runways, install much needed lighting and enhance
communications.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and commend Chairman
Shuster for his leadership and dedication to improving air travel. AIR-
21 is a good bill and one that I encourage all members to support.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to
recognize Mr. Jack King and his son, Chip King, a Navy fighter pilot.
Jack is a public relations manager with United Space Alliance in my
district, and is well known in the space program as the ``Voice of
Apollo.'' It was Jack's voice that millions of Americans heard
chronicling our early adventures in space.
And, appropriately, his son, Chip, is also in the aerospace business.
He's flying F-14s, and he recently flew a Sports Illustrated
correspondent to give the public a taste of flying jet fighters. That
flight was reported in the September 1999 edition of the magazine, and
I will submit the full text of that article for the Record.
This is a great story about a father and son working in one of the
industries in which our nation leads the world--aerospace. We need to
work together in Washington to ensure fathers like Jack continue to
work in our space industry, and that sons like Chip continue to
faithfully serve in defense of our nation.

[From Sports Illustrated Magazine, Sept. 20, 1999]

On a Wing and a Prayer

(By Rick Reilly)

Now this message for America's most famous athletes:
Someday you may be invited to fly in the backseat of one of
your country's most powerful fighter jets. Many of you
already have--John Elway, John Stockton, Tiger Woods to name
a few. If you get this opportunity, let me urge you, with the
greatest sincerity. . . .
Move to Guam. Change your name. Fake your own death.
Whatever you do, do not go. I know. The U.S. Navy invited me
to try it. I was thrilled, I was pumped. I was toast!
I should've known when they told me my pilot would be Chip
(Biff) King of Fighter Squadron 213 at Naval Air Station
Oceana in Virginia Beach. Whatever you're thinking a Top Gun
named Chip (Biff) King looks like, triple it. He's about six-
foot, tan, ice-blue eyes, wavy surfer hair, finger-crippling
handshake--the kind of man who wrestles dyspeptic alligators
in his leisure time. If you see this man, run the other way.
Fast.
Biff King was born to fly. His father, Jack King, was for
years the voice of NASA missions. (``T-minus 15 seconds and
counting. . . .'' Remember?) Chip would charge neighborhood
kids a quarter each to hear his dad. Jack would wake up from
naps surrounded by nine-year-olds waiting for him to say,
``We have a liftoff.''
Biff was to fly me in an F-14D Tomcat, a ridiculously
powerful $60 million weapon with nearly as much thrust as
weight, not unlike Colin Montgomerie. I was worried about
getting airsick, so the night before the flight I asked Biff
if there was something I should eat the next morning.
``Bananas,'' he said.
``For the potassium?'' I asked.
``No,'' Biff said, ``because they taste about the same
coming up as they do going down.''
The next morning, out on the tarmac, I had on my flight
suit with my name sewn over the left breast. (No call sign--
like Crash or Sticky or Leadfoot--but, still, very cool.) I
carried my helmet in the crook of my arm, as Biff had
instructed.
A fighter pilot named Psycho gave me a safety briefing and
then fastened me into my ejection seat, which, when employed,
would ``egress'' me out of the plane at such a velocity that
I would be immediately knocked unconscious.
Just as I was thinking about aborting the flight, the
canopy closed over me, and Biff gave the ground crew a
thumbs-up. In minutes we were firing nose up at 600 mph. We
leveled out and then canopy-rolled over another F-14. Those
20 minutes were the rush of my life. Unfortunately, the ride
lasted 80.
It was like being on the roller coaster at Six Flags Over
Hell. Only without rails. We

[[Page H1025]]

did barrel rolls, sap rolls, loops, yanks and banks. We
dived, rose and dived again, sometimes with a vertical
velocity of 10,000 feet per minute. We chased another F-14,
and it chased us. We broke the speed of sound. Sea was sky
and sky was sea. Flying at 200 feet we did 90-degree turns at
550 mph, creating a G force of 6.5, which is to say I felt as
if 6.5 times my body weight was smashing against me, thereby
approximating life as Mrs. Colin Montgomerie.
And I egressed the bananas. I egressed the pizza from the
night before. And the lunch before that. I egressed a box of
Milk Duds from the sixth grade, I made Linda Blair look
polite. Because of the G's, I was egressing stuff that did
not even want to be egressed. I went through not one airsick
bag, but two. Biff said I passed out. Twice.
I was coated in sweat. At one point, as we were coming in
upside down in a banked curve on a mock bombing target and
the G's were flattening me like a tortilla and I was in and
out of consciousness, I realized I was the first person in
history to throw down.
I used to know cool. Cool was Elway throwing a touchdown
pass, or Norman making a five-iron bite. But now I really
know cool. Cool is guys like Biff, men with cast-iron
stomachs and Freon nerves. I wouldn't go up there again for
Derek Jeter's black book, but I'm glad Biff does every day,
and for less a year than a rookie reliever makes in a home
stand.
A week later, when the spins finally stopped, Biff called.
He said he and the fighters had the perfect call sign for me.
Said he'd send it on a patch for my flight suit.
What is it? I asked.
``Two Bags.''

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to cast my vote in support of
H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the
21st Century conference report. This crucial piece of legislation will
not only allow the aviation system of the United States to provide
needed improvements and remedy problems facing the industry today, but
will also move our Nation's aviation system well into the next century.
The U.S. aviation system is in more dire need than most realize.
Within the last five years air travel has increased 27%, and is
expected to increase over 50%, to one billion passengers over the next
ten years. This incredible increase is forcing the aviation system into
a gridlock, which will result in a deterioration of safety, harm the
efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, damage our position in
the global marketplace and threaten the lives of our Nation's families.
Already, recent aviation accidents have highlighted the overwhelming
importance of this legislation. Today's air traffic control system is
the equivalent of a bridge about to collapse as more and more air
traffic strains the system. Regrettably, I personally experienced the
severity of this situation. As my Hudson Valley colleagues and I fought
to acquire modern air traffic control equipment for Stewart
International Airport in our region, it horrified us to learn that
vital pieces of equipment, including a radar screen, were not available
and that our air traffic controllers had been forced to use binoculars
to guide in passenger aircraft.
New safety and security recommendations must be implemented and
modernization efforts, already many years behind schedule, must be
completed. The capital investments and operational funds needed to meet
these priorities and to support the overall advancement of our air
traffic control system are indeed daunting and must be met.
Today, the House of Representatives has the opportunity to make our
airports and skies safer by passing this conference report. To my
constituents in New York's 20th Congressional District, who live in the
flight paths of Stewart and other regional airports, the passage of
this bill will have a tremendous effect. This conference Report ensures
that the FAA will have the funding to hire and retain air traffic
controllers, maintenance technicians, and safety inspectors necessary
to keep our airways safe. It will enhance safety at our airports by
providing funding to modernize air traffic control facilities, improve
runways and install collision avoidance systems. H.R. 1000 will
increase the amount of money available for noise abatement projects,
creates a new environmental streamlining program and encourages
airports to use low emission vehicles.
In conclusion, this measure will be the most important piece of
legislation for our Nation's aviation system to date. It will make our
airways and airports safer, more competitive and more friendly to the
communities around them and our Nation as a whole.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to fully support this important
aviation measure.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1000, The
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not address the critical aviation needs
of the South Suburbs of Chicago. Chicago desperately needs a South
Suburban airport to be able not only to maintain its current level of
aviation traffic but to continue to receive new flights into the
community. Chicago is currently the aviation center of the United
States. However, under this legislation, Chicago is certain to lose its
preeminence as the nation's aviation leader.
Specifically, H.R. 1000 lifts slot restrictions at O'Hare airport
after July 1, 2002. In the interim, the Department of Transportation
must provide exemption to any airline flying to O'Hare if it uses
aircraft with 70 seats or less under similar conditions outlined above.
In addition, beginning on July 1, 2001, slot restrictions will apply
only between the hours of 2:45 p.m. and 8:14 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an effective answer to the problems
surrounding O'Hare airport. Just this past year, we have seen
significantly higher delays at O'Hare airport. Attempting to push more
flights into an already overcrowded airport will not solve the capacity
problems of Chicago O'Hare nor will it reduce delays and congestion. In
fact, this will only exacerbate a problem that will get progressively
worse.
Aviation demand is expected to more than double by the year 2015. In
order to meet this demand, it is necessary to expand and grow capacity,
not to simply put more flights into an already overcrowded air system.
Not only will this strategy force more delays, but it will also
potentially increase the safety risks of the traveling public.
Both O'Hare and Midway will have reached operational capacity in the
very near future. Unfortunately, neither of these airports can
physically expand as they are both constrained by urban growth around
them. Chicago is the nation's aviation leader, and, in order to protect
that status, we must look beyond O'Hare and Midway airports and begin
serious work on the South Suburban Airport--an airport that can grow
and expand to meet the demands of this new century.
Additionally, the South Suburban Airport would create 236,000
permanent jobs and $5.1 billion in annual wages. 2.4 million people
live within 45 minutes of the proposed South Suburban Airport--these
people need and deserve to have the third airport built. Mr. Speaker,
the time has come for the South Suburban Airport. Clearly, we need an
airport which can grown and expand as necessary while relieving the
congestion and delays at our other Chicago airports.
Finally, the bill contains no funds for the third airport. While the
bill does contain what is effectively a tax increase on the flying
public, not one dime is spent towards the creation of a South Suburban
Airport. The measure authorizes the FAA to permit an airport to levy a
Passenger Facility Charge of up to $4.50. This represents a 50 percent
increase over the current Passenger Facility Charge. Mr. Speaker, I
cannot support raising the prices that the flying public must pay to
reach their destination when no funds are provided for the creation of
a South Suburban Airport.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of the Conference
agreement provisions which allow exemptions to the current perimeter
rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I commend you on
creating a process which I believe fairly balances the interests of
Senators from states inside the perimeter and those of us from Western
states without convenient access to Reagan National.
As you know, I have been involved and supportive of this effort since
the legislation was first introduced. I want to reiterate that these
limited exemptions must benefit citizens throughout the west. I want to
make it clear that this very limited number of exemptions must not be
awarded solely or disproportionately to one carrier or one airport. I
expect that the DOT will ensure that the maximum number of cities
benefit from these 12 slots.
While I would have preferred to eliminate the perimeter rule
altogether or have more slots available for improved access to the
West, the final agreement includes 12 slots and now the DOT must ensure
that all parts of the West benefit. I am particularly concerned that
small and midsized communities in the West, especially in the Northern
tier have improved access through hubs like Salt Lake City.
These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule from hubs like Salt
Lake City will improve service to the nation's capital for dozens of
Western cities beyond the perimeter--while at the same time ensuring
that cities inside the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new
service. This is a fair balance which is consistent with the overall
intent of the bill to improve air service to small and medium-sized
cities.
Throughout this bill, our goal has been to improve air service for
communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to
the extent of larger markets. The provision related to improved access
to Reagan National is no different. Today, passengers from small and
medium-sized communities in the West are forced to double or even
triple connect to fly to Reagan National. My goal is to ensure that not
just large city point-to-point service will benefit, but that
passengers from all points west of the perimeter will have better

[[Page H1026]]

options to reach Washington and Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport via connections at Western hubs like Salt Lake City. This
provision is about using this restricted exemption process to spread
improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few
large cities which already have a variety of options.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R.
1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
First, I would like to congratulate Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
Lipinski for their tireless efforts on behalf of this bill.
I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for
their leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The bipartisan way in which these two gentlemen conduct the committee
is an example for all. Under their direction, this Congress has made
the maintenance of and investment in our nation's infrastructure a top
priority.
AIR-21 is good news for the American people and the country. This
legislation maintains the integrity of the trust funds and reinforces
the idea that the money we collect from air passengers should be spent
on aviation to reduce the backlog of infrastructure needs at our
nation's airports.
I am pleased that the impasse over this vital piece of legislation
has ended and that the FAA will finally receive the funding they so
desperately need. Additionally, AIR-21 is extremely important to
Philadelphia, as well as to all airports because it provides the
funding necessary to make improvements, enhance capacity, and to
increase safety.
AIR-21 will increase spending on airport improvements, air traffic
control, and other aviation needs. This ``record level of investment,''
as Secretary Slater called the $40 billion that will go to the FAA,
will make air travel safer and more efficient for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about how crowded our skies are.
Domestic air travel had 655 million passengers over the past five
years. This number is expected to reach over one billion in the next
ten years. Air travel is the mode of choice for travelers today. The
demand is unbelievable and is evidenced at Philadelphia International
Airport, which is one of the busiest airports in the eastern region.
The passage of this legislation will go a long way towards making
Philadelphia International a better airport. Under this Conference
Agreement Philadelphia Airport, a major hub, will receive almost $7
million. This money will be used for new projects that will improve the
efficiency of Philadelphia's airport, since it is congested throughout
the day and not just at peak times. Last year, the airport had over 23
million passengers and the funds that Philadelphia International
Airport will receive will allow the airport to provide increased
capacity for these travelers and to promote safety as well.
I would also like to note that the increase in the Passenger Facility
Charge that the conferees reached agreement on is also important to
Philadelphia's airport. This modest raise in the cap on the PFC will
also allow individual airports, like Philadelphia, the flexibility to
proceed with improvement projects not eligible for funding through the
Airport Improvement Program.
The passage of this bill is essential because it increases funding
for air traffic control modernization by almost 50 percent and funding
for airport improvements will increase by more than 50 percent. This
level of investment is vital to all airports not just Philadelphia's.
Mr. Speaker, I offer my support for AIR-21 and I urge my colleagues
to vote for this important legislation. H.R. 1000 is good for
transportation and good for the nation.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Title IX of the
Conference Report and will limit my remarks to Title IX of the
Agreement, which provides a three-year authorization for the research
and development activities of the Federal Aviation Administration.
I am particularly pleased with the authorization levels that are
provided for aviation research and development, both in Title IX and in
the Airway Facilities portion of the bill. The budget growth provided
by Title IX is focused on more long-term research and will help reverse
recent declines in this essential component of the agency's R&D
investment.
Sufficient funds must be provided to enable FAA's research and
development programs to develop the new technologies that will help
increase the capacity and efficiency of operation of the airspace
system, while ensuring its safety and security.
I would like to highlight a provision in Title IX that requires FAA
to provide Congress with a complete description of its R&D programs.
Some confusion exists about the full scope of FAA's R&D activities,
since they appear in different parts of the agency's annual budget
submission.
The Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Transportation, in
recent testimony before the Science Committee, recommended that FAA
identify in its budget basic research, applied research, and
development activities, including prototype development. The IG pointed
out that such reporting will give the agency a better idea of how it
spends development funds and will provide Congress with a more
comprehensive picture of FAA's civil aviation R&D investments.
The reporting provision included in Title IX requires FAA to provide
Congress with a comprehensive description of its R&D programs by
identifying the individual projects that appear in each category of the
agency's budget. This information must be provided annually by FAA in
the National Aviation Research Plan.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank our Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member Oberstar on the Transportation Committee for working
with us on Title IX. And as always it has been a pleasure working with
Chairwoman Morella on FAA's research and development provisions. This
Conference Agreement will ensure that FAA has the R&D resources needed
to meet its challenging goals for the modernization of the national
airspace system and for improving the safety of air travel.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the AIR-
21 Conference Report which reauthorizes funding for the Federal
Aviation Administration. As a conferee on this bill, I am pleased that
we were able to come together in a bipartisan fashion to provide the
funding the FAA needs to provide America with a first class aviation
infrastructure for the 21st century.
First, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar
for their leadership and persistence in making certain that all
aviation tax revenue and interest be spent each year on aviation
programs.
The Conference Agreement authorizes $40 billion in funding for the
next three fiscal years--a 26 percent increase in FY01 alone. This
funding provides increases for all aspects of the FAA, to modernize its
systems and deal more effectively with our expanding air transportation
industry.
This legislation serves to increase competition and aid small
communities. The provisions to lift all slot restrictions at O'Hare, La
Guardia and Kennedy, and increase the number of slots at National
Airport can only help new airlines provide service and underserved
communities receive service. I worked hard to ensure that rural
communities in the Midwest stood to benefit from these new provisions.
By improving capacity at large and small airports, the bill ensures
more equitable competition in an industry where individual air carriers
have market dominance over many communities. And by promoting access,
the bill increases service which currently have little or no markets at
all.
The bill also provides funding for small and general aviation
airports through an annual entitlement. This provision will guarantee
that small and general aviation airports will receive an annual federal
investment to continue to implement safety improvements and projects to
increase efficiency.
Finally, AIR-21 should provide money to allow the FAA to make
administrative changes without harming ongoing effective programs like
the Air Traffic Control Contract Program. I recently urged the FAA
Administrator to reject proposals by some bureaucrats to cut this
program which is so vital to many small communities, and I hope now
with passage of AIR-21, she will do so.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Mr. Oberstar,
Chairman Duncan, and Mr. Lipinski for their leadership in bringing this
bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this legislation in order to bring our aviation system into the 21st
century.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the
conference report for H.R. 1000, the AIR-21 legislation. This
legislation is clearly needed to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund and to
provide adequate funding for our nation's airports.
This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the
Transportation Committee; the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Duncan), the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee; and the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking
member of the Subcommittee and the other members of the conference
committee for their extraordinary work in developing this conference
report and bringing it to the Floor. This Member appreciates their
diligence, persistence, and hard work.
This is an important bill for this Member's district, for the State
of Nebraska, and for the Nation. It addresses the country's growing
aviation needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Quite simply, the bill
recognizes the need to spend aviation taxes on the aviation system.
During the 105th Congress we restored the trust with American drivers
by ensuring that gas taxes actually will be spent as available
primarily on highway construction and

[[Page H1027]]

maintenance. It is now time to ensure that this trust is restored with
the flying public.
This conference report will lead to significantly increased funding
for our nation's airports. As a result, it will result in reduced
flight delays, improved air safety, and greater competition. The
American people deserve to see this legislation enacted. They deserve
it because they've already paid in taxes what it will now authorize.
This Member is concerned about growing needs at our nation's
airports. While more people are flying, airport improvements are simply
not keeping pace. That's because the money that passengers are paying
each time they fly and fuel taxes are accumulating in the trust fund
rather than being put to use to improve our airports and provide safer
flying.
Unless we act now, the problems will only get worse. It is now
anticipated that air travel will increase by more than 40 percent over
the next ten years. This surge will place increased demands on an
already over-burdened aviation system. According to the General
Accounting Office, we are underfunding airport infrastructure by at
least $3 billion each year. Currently, the needs of smaller airports
are twice as great as their funding sources. Fortunately, we have the
ability to act now. We can improve the system without raising taxes or
threatening the funding for other government programs or services. We
must unlock the money in the Aviation Trust Fund and spend it for what
it was intended.
Airports across the country and the passengers who use them will all
benefit from passage of this legislation. Large airports as well as
small airports will be able to modernize and expand once the Trust Fund
money is released.
The increases in funding will be substantial and passengers will
notice the results if we make these investments now. As an example, the
Lincoln Municipal Airport in Nebraska currently receives an entitlement
of about $1 million per year. Under the conference report, this will
increase to more than $2 million annually. Such an increase would
greatly assist the airport with its planned $5 million runway project,
which would replace the surface, comply with new safety requirements,
and provide new lighting. General aviation airports in Nebraska, in
communities such as Beatrice, Falls City, Blair, Fremont, Norfolk,
York, Plattsmouth, and Nebraska City will also receive annual
entitlements which will assist them with necessary projects.
Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the
conference report for H.R. 1000. It will provide the American people
with the aviation system that they have paid for and deserve.

General Aviation--Conference GA Entitlement

nebraska

ANW--Ainsworth Municipal, Ainsworth, $150,000.
BVN--Albion Municipal, Albion, 150,000.
AIA--Alliance Municipal, Alliance, $117,533.
BIE--Beatrice Municipal, Beatrice, $39,800.
FNB--Brenner Field, Falls City, $60,000.
CDR--Chadron Municipal, Chadron, $111,600.
CNP--Chappell Municipal, Chappell, $1,000.
OLU--Columbus Municipal, Columbus, $43,200.
K46--Eagle Field, Blair, $150,000.
FBY--Fairbury Municipal, Fairbury, $118,800.
FET--Fremont Municipal, Fremont, $80,000.
OKS--Garden County, Oshkosh, $150,000.
HSI--Hastings Municipal, Hastings, $69,000.
IML--Imperial Municipal, Imperial, $119,200.
OFK--Karl Stefan Memorial, Norfolk, $150,000.
EAR--Kearney Municipal, Kearney, $80,475.
LXN--Lexington (Jim Kel), Lexington, $130,000.
MCK--Mc Cook Municipal, Mc Cook, $84,000.
VTN--Miller Field, Valentine, $150,000.
9V5--Modisett, Rushville, $99,253.
4D9--Municipal, Alma, $36,800.
JYR--Municipal, York, $100,000.
AFK--Nebraska City Municipal, Nebraska City, $150,000.
0V3--Pioneer Village Field, Minden, $77,200.
PMV--Plattsmouth Municipal, Plattsmouth, $150,000.
OGA--Searle Field, Ogallala, $93,400.
Summary for `State' = NE (26 detail records)--Sum
$2,661,261.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1000.
Although I support the reauthorization of the FAA and the Airport
Improvement Program, I find the manipulation of the current budgeting
process in this bill detrimental to a fiscally sound government, for
which the Republicans have been fighting, and have achieved, as the
majority party.
Why do we want to take a step backwards, back to when this House was
governed by a tax and spend policy, in a misguided attempt to
drastically inflate a federal agency's budget?
Where is the Republican agenda--the agenda to make the federal
government smaller, leaner, more efficient?
This bill could increase taxes by an estimated $700 million if all
the airports levy the additional charge that this bill authorizes--and
I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't.
Is this what Congress wants to do today, raise taxes by $700 million
when we have a surplus and are trying to cut taxes?
I cannot support this approach. With the rise in fuel costs, which
has equated to a rise in airline prices, we don't need to pile on to
this and put another increase onto an air traveler's expenses.
In addition, it is disappointing to see this bill come before the
House today under the slogan of ``unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund.''
Federal trust funds are not your run-of-the-mill trust fund that can
be compared to a family or business trust fund. These federal trust
funds are authorizations for appropriations, and this has always been
the intent since their creation.
But, don't take my word for it. Let me quote a CRS report:

Whatever their intended purposes, federal trust funds are
basically record-keeping devices that account for the
spending authority available for certain programs. Although
frequently thought of as holding financial assets, they do
not.

I repeat: trust funds do not hold financial assets; there is no money
in them.
The report goes on to say:

Simply stated, as long as a trust fund has a balance, the
Treasury Department has authority to keep issuing checks for
the program, but balances do not provide the treasury with
the cash to cover these checks.

So if it's the right policy to take trust funds off-budget, where is
the cash going to come from to cover the checks written on the trust
fund balance? Are we going to cut funding for our schools, for law
enforcement, for environmental programs, for our Veterans?
We need to take a step back and understand where this road leads us.
I understand the supporters of this measure see guaranteed money
every year.
Wouldn't this be nice if everyone had a guaranteed stream of cash
flowing into their coffers every October First? But, that is not the
way to run a fiscally responsible government.
We simply cannot govern a nation by compartmentalizing our budget
through dedicated funding streams. Revenue streams must be spent on the
nation's priorities as a whole. You can't run a business by restricting
cash flows to expenses directly attributable to their related sales.
Can GM effectively compete in the world market if the money they
received from selling shock absorbers couldn't be used for maintenance
of brake manufacturing equipment? No. GM can't, and neither can the
federal government.
Republicans have governed our nation's tax dollars with restraint and
have given the taxpayer some of their money back with tax cuts.
Let's not sabotage 5 and a half years of work. We should be looking
at ways of streamlining federal agencies, not bloating their budgets by
creating a mandatory account and increasing the taxes for this account.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shuster and
Ranking Member Oberstar for the much needed Aviation Investment and
Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Conference Report on H.R. 1000.
Just last Friday, at the Philadelphia International Airport in my
district, the air traffic control technology went down for 30 minutes.
Thank God there were no incidents.
The FAA is--even as I speak--still trying to figure out what went
wrong. This much needed legislation will speed up the process of
updating that technology for the safety of the thousands of people who
use our airport.
Mr. Speaker, my son, daughter-in-law and two precious granddaughters
are flying out of Philadelphia Airport on Thursday. I want to make sure
that they and everyone's children and grandchildren who are traveling
are as safe as can be. This legislation will help Philadelphia
International acquire state-of-the-art technology to keep the public
safe. There is no price that can be put on human lives. So we should
pass this report and spend what is needed to protect our constituents.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I speak out today in strong opposition to the
conference report on the Aviation Investment and Reform Act, better
known as AIR21. While there is much to be said for certain portions of
that measure, the negative aspects of it are far more pervasive. For
many people living in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, those aspects
are nothing short of disastrous.
To be sure, this AIR21 conference report will make more money
available to our nation's airports, not just for construction work but
for service enhancements and security improvements as well. In
addition, it will allow more people to fly to and from the busiest of
those airports. For some people, those two features may be good news.
But, for many others, they are anything but.
Not only will the 50% increase in the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)
have a negative

[[Page H1028]]

affect on the airlines and those who patronize them, but the phaseout
of the High Density Rule at O'Hare, LaGuardia and JFK Airports and the
easing of that Rule at Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C. will
be a living nightmare for thousands of people living near those
facilities. In addition to being awakened at all hours of the day or
night, but they will have a hard time getting much sleep in the first
place.

Hardest hit will be those people who live near Chicago's O'Hare
Airport. For them, the High Density Rule, or slot rule as it is often
called, will be phased out by July 1, 2002, not January 1, 2007 as is
the case for La Guardia and JFK Airports in New York. Or to put it
another way, in just over two years, there will no longer be any set
limit on the number of flights that can arrive at, or depart from,
O'Hare even though efforts to reduce existing noise levels there have
met with little success. When that happens, not only is the total
number of flights to and from O'Hare likely to increase dramatically--
but so too will airport noise levels and the risk of planes colliding
either on the runway or in nearby airspace. That two airliners nearly
flew into one another over Lake Michigan not long ago should alert us
to the fact that additions to O'Hare's very busy flight schedule could
have safety as well as noise implications.
That said, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please know that I fully
understand and appreciate why you may want to make it easier for your
constituents to visit Chicago, either to vacation or to conduct
business. With all that the city has to offer--the Magnificent Mile,
Navy Pier, the Museum of Science and Industry, Grant Park, the Field
Museum, Shedd Aquarium and many other attractions too numerous to
mention--it is no wonder that people from all over the country want
more flights, and better flights schedules, to the City of Broad
Shoulders. Make no mistake about it, Chicago is a wonderful place to
visit and those of us fortunate enough to live in or near the city want
to make it as easy as possible for anyone to do so. However, that can
be readily accomplished without making it almost impossible for those
living near O'Hare to get a good night's sleep, to carry on a quiet
conversation, to have a peaceful cookout in their own back yard, or to
relax in the knowledge that aircraft safety is not being put to an
additional test.
As things now stand, there are no less than four other regional
airports within 100 miles of Chicago. One of these--the Greater
Rockford Airport--already has a 10,000 foot runway, the second longest
in Illinois, plus an 8,200 foot runway and a 65,000 square foot
passenger terminal that is currently underutilized. Another--Midway
Airport on the west side of Chicago--is in the midst of a terminal
expansion program that will enable it to serve even more air passengers
than it does already. Since the passenger terminal at Greater Rockford
could be expanded also, there is no compelling reason why any
additional flights to Chicago could not be diverted to those two
airports without inconveniencing air passengers to any great extent.
Both lie within 60 miles of O'Hare, for those passengers wishing to
catch a connecting flight and neither all that far, or out of reach,
from downtown Chicago.
Given the existence of such an attractive and relatively-easy-to
implement alternative to the adverse consequences of increasing flights
to and from O'Hare, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this
conference report. Not only would its defeat today enable us to make
changes that would accommodate the demands for additional air service
to Chicago by directing any extra flights to either Midway Airport or
Greater Rockford Airport, but it would give us an opportunity to make
several other improvements as well.
For instance, we could--and should--eliminate the 50% increase in the
PFC that is making the airlines, their passengers and residents around
O'Hare Airport understandably nervous. Also, we could--and should--take
a look and see whether air traffic safety and aircraft noise abatement
programs are being sufficiently funded and, if not, whether funds
should be transferred from other projects so that people living near
major airports can have some peace and quiet as well as peace of mind.
They deserve every bit as much consideration as those who wish to see
additional air service become a reality.
With that, Mr. Speaker, let me close by once again urging my
colleagues to vote down this conference report. We can, and should,
make it responsive not just to the needs of air travelers but to the
very legitimate concerns of those living near our Nation's airports as
well.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report for the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
As a conferee on the Research and Development section of AIR-21, I
applaud the strong bipartisan support for the significant increase in
funding levels for the FAA's research, engineering, and development
program. It is remarkable that the FY 2001 authorization will be 51%
more than the current funding levels for these valuable activities.
However, some sections of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act are
misguided in their purpose and detrimental to many of our constituents.
If the conference report for AIR-21 passes the House today, twenty-
four new slots will be added to Reagan National Airport. Half of these
additional slots will be used for flights outside of the existing
perimeter rule of 1,250 miles.
Drafters of this legislation claim that additional slots will
increase airline competition. What they do not realize is that the
Washington Metropolitan Area retains an enviably high level of
competitive service. Most major cities are served by a single airport
with a dominant carrier. Washington, on the other hand, is fortunate to
be served by three airports. With no dominant carrier, changing the
slot and perimeter rule will only damage the environmental and economic
balance that exists between National, Dulles, and BWI Airports. An
increase in flights at National could mean fewer flights in and out of
Dulles and BWI--which, in turn, would cause further flight delays.
The slot rule was originally part of a ``good faith'' agreement
between federal, local, and airport officials when control of National
and Dulles was transferred from the FAA to a local authority--the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). This ``good faith''
provision has the effect of abating airport and air traffic noise. Any
tampering with the current slot rule will open the doors to further
changes that would impact the airports' neighbors in Maryland and
Virginia.
The daily lives of these citizens are interrupted enough by airplane
noise. They do not need additional flights disturbing their children at
school or their family dinners at home. More and more, scientific
studies reveal that noise at the decibel levels found in communities
neighboring airports may cause hearing loss, impaired health, and
antisocial behavior. On the floor of the House, I have often stressed
that unlike oil spills or landfills, noise is an invisible pollutant,
but the hazards are just as real.
The Federal Government should not be in the business of operating
airports. The citizens living in the Washington Metropolitan area must
have a voice in the ultimate determination of decisions that affect
airport and air traffic noise. They are the ones that have to live each
day with our decision.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the
conferees for including a provision in this bill that will help
airports, like the Sarasota-Brandenton International Airport in my
District, use certain terminal costs to be eligible for Passenger
Facility Charge funding. As the author of the language, I also wish to
clarify that the intent of the last three lines of Section 152 (2)(c)
that reads ``between calendar year 1989 and calendar year 1997,''
specifically refers to calendar years 1990 through 1996 and does not
include calendar years 1989 and 1997.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, once again for developing legislation that
returns budgetary honesty to our trust funds, ensuring that the
necessary funding for our nation's transportation infrastructure is
provided. Similar to the success of TEA-21 enacted last Congress, this
bill, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR-21), will make certain that the receipts and interest of
the Aviation and Airways Trust Fund are used to improve our aviation
infrastructure first and the administrations of operations second.
America's transportation system is the envy of the world. The United
States, however, has pushed our air transportation system to the limit.
Aviation delays are increasing as we exceed airport and runway
capacity. The United States is home to 19 of the world's 20 busiest
airports, yet we do not have the world's most advanced air traffic
control systems. AIR-21 will provide the necessary funding for airports
to keep pace with the dramatic increase in air travelers.
Nationwide, passenger travel has increased at a rate of five percent
a year, and we expect more than a billion people will board planes by
2010. Manchester Airport, in my home state of New Hampshire, is the
fastest growing airport in the country. In 1998, 1.94 million people
flew out of Manchester, which represents a 70% increase over 1997.
This legislation will make it possible to increase airport capacity,
which will not only reduce delays, but will also inject a healthy shot
of competition into the airline industry. By creating more gates, more
airlines will have the opportunity to fly popular routes, and the
increased competition will help drive down ticket prices.
Upgrading antiquated FAA traffic control systems is another priority.
Just last year, the FAA experienced more than 100 significant system
outages where air traffic controllers lost some or all of the primary
systems that

[[Page H1029]]

help them track aircraft. We lead the world in technology yet we
entrust the safety of our skies to computers made almost 30 years ago.
Additionally, among the many excellent provisions in this bill, I
would like to call attention to a provision that requires the FAA to
conduct a study of the use of recycled materials in the construction of
airport runways, taxiways, and aprons. As used here, recycled
materials includes recycled pavements, waste materials, and byproducts.
This is an important environmental provision. It addresses an urgent
need to do a better job of promoting the use of recycled materials.
Furthermore, it does so in a way that will make recycling successful.
This is critical to maximizing the volume of waste materials that
actually gets recycled.

Last year, we included in TEA-21 a provision to create the Recycled
Materials Resource Center. That center, funded by and working in close
collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration, provides
assistance to highway programs nationwide. It helps develop standards
for the appropriate use of recycled materials, along with suitable
tests to ensure compliance with those standards. In addition, it
conducts research into specific applications to determine the
conditions under which recycled materials can be used. This is needed
for two reasons. First, to ensure the physical performance of the road
or highway throughout its planned useful life. Equally important, it
ensures that there will be no adverse environmental problems resulting
from the use of a recycled material in place of virgin materials.
In short, this center was created to provide independent third party
analysis of proposed uses, so that decision makers could approve the
use of recycled materials in appropriate circumstances based on
objective evidence, and with appropriate standards and tests. In other
words, rather than just pushing for recycling and hoping the road or
highway stands up under long-term use, this center is dedicated to
promoting successful recycling. And doing so in a way that responds to
legitimate concerns by public officials. Against this background, I
proposed that we leverage this ongoing Federal investment in using
recycled materials in transportation infrastructure by extending its
benefits to our national effort to upgrade airports. After all, airport
construction involves large amounts of pavement in runways, taxiways,
and aprons; not to mention related parking lots and approach roads.
As with roads and highways, public officials want to do the right
thing. They understand the value of recycling, providing it does not
increase costs, and providing that they can be sure the runway,
taxiway, or apron will be built to the required high performance
standard. They do not need mandates, they need technical assistance and
information based on independent analysis of the issues.
As with roads and highways, the FAA study needs to focus both on
physical performance--will the pavement work as expected over its full
useful life--and also on environmental performance over that same
useful life. Public officials need assurance that there will be no
unexpected environmental side effects in the future. They cannot be
expected to risk possible contamination problems because of incomplete
analysis. Therefore, this assurance of future environmental integrity
must be based on sound science, validated by an independent third
party. Therefore, as with earlier efforts with roads and highways, the
logical place to start seems to be with a comprehensive study focusing
on issues of long term physical performance, safety implications, and
environmental benefits of using recycled materials in aviation
pavement. Recognizing that much work has been done in this field, this
provision provides that the FAA should carry it out by entering a
contract with a university of higher education with expertise necessary
to carry out the study.
A logical candidate to do such a study would be the Recycled
Materials Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. It has
directly relevant experience working with transportation pavements.
Since the US Department of Transportation already is funding and
utilizing this center, it seems especially appropriate that we should
leverage that Federal investment by applying that expertise to related
issues in airport construction.
Furthermore, I am pleased to see the section regarding Airplane
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) included in AIR-21. The absence
of ELTs has increased the costs of public and private search and rescue
operations following certain aircraft crashes. One such crash occurred
on December 24, 1996, when a plane piloted by Johan Schwartz and
Patrick Hayes disappeared near Lebanon, New Hampshire. The States of
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts
conducted an extensive search, in cooperation with the Federal
Government, in an unsuccessful effort to locate the plane and any
survivors. It is believed that the existence of an ELT on this plane
would have substantially increased the likelihood of finding the crash.
In conclusion, I believed that AIR-21 would help instill honesty in
the budget process and allow us to invest in our airports to expand
airport capacity and make our skies and airports safer. For too long,
we've neglected our transportation needs and allowed the surpluses in
the transportation trust funds to accrue in order to mask the size of
the budget deficit. AIR-21 will ensure that the airline ticket taxes we
pay each time that we fly will be used to improve our airports and
aviation infrastructure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time has
expired. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
conference report.
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. OBEY. 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 319,
nays 101, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 48]

YEAS--319

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tauscher

[[Page H1030]]

Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Vitter
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NAYS--101

Aderholt
Archer
Baldwin
Barrett (NE)
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Collins
Cox
Crane
Davis (IL)
DeLay
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Goode
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lowey
McDermott
McInnis
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nethercutt
Obey
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Skeen
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weller
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Boucher
Cook
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Klink
McCollum
Myrick
Ortiz
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rush
Tanner
Walden

{time} 1258

Mr. LEWIS of California, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CRANE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr.
COLLINS, Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE, and Messrs. FARR of California, HAYWORTH
and STUMP changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LAZIO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
Stated for:
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I was absent this morning due to
important business in my Congressional district yesterday and missed
rollcall vote 48 on the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 48, on agreeing to the
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1000, I was away on official
business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________