[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.''

                          ____________________