[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3728-H3749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SMALL AIRPORT SAFETY, SECURITY, AND AIR SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 447 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 447

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to provide assistance for the construction of certain air 
     traffic control towers. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It shall be 
     in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. 
     Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 447 is an open rule, which provides for 
1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 
H.R. 1979, the Small Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service 
Improvement Act of 2002.
  The rule provides that it shall be in order to consider for the 
purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute now 
printed in the bill. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and provides that it shall be open for amendment by section.
  Any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do so as long as it 
complies with the regular rules of the House. However, the rule allows 
the Chairman of the Committee of the

[[Page H3729]]

Whole to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica), and the author of this bill, the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker), as well as all the members of the committee for their 
hard work and steadfast efforts on behalf of our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure needs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that safety is enhanced when air 
traffic controllers guide a plane through the skies and onto a runway. 
Yet many of our Nation's smaller airports do not have air traffic 
control towers, leaving pilots on their own to seek out and avoid air 
traffic and land on the ground safely.
  The FAA has been tasked with the role of building air traffic control 
towers in our Nation's larger airports, but their construction budgets 
are not large enough to pay for the needed towers at the smaller 
airports, even though many of these airports have commercial passenger 
service or very active general aviation business.
  This legislation seeks to address this problem by changing existing 
law to allow small airports to use their Airports Improvement Program, 
or AIP, grant money to build traffic control towers and to equip these 
towers. It is important to note that this added safety step is purely 
voluntary, and the legislation provides each small airport with the 
flexibility to meet their most pressing individual safety needs.
  As a matter of fairness, this legislation allows for limited 
reimbursement of costs incurred after October 1, 1996, for tower 
construction costs and equipment purchases. This recognizes that some 
airports chose to improve their safety by building their own towers at 
their own cost, and they should not be penalized for their initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1979 takes yet another step forward to increase air 
safety, efficiency, and security at our Nation's smaller airports. In 
addition, regional service in our rural areas will be enhanced, 
providing significant savings to the FAA in air traffic costs and 
increasing economic productivity in smaller communities nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support. There 
is no additional cost to the government, since it simply gives our 
airports and the FAA another authorized use for AIP grant money. I urge 
all my colleagues to support this straightforward, noncontroversial 
rule as well as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, providing for an hour of debate on 
H.R. 1979, the Small Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service 
Improvement Act. This is an open rule, allowing for any germane 
amendment to be offered, and I support this rule and commend the 
majority for reporting this fair rule.
  Prior to being selected on the Committee on Rules, I had the honor of 
serving as a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. My experiences, first with Mr. Shuster and then with 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), were positive and almost always 
bipartisan. I have the utmost respect for both the former and current 
chairmen, and I cannot recall a time when the committee did not work 
together to resolve partisan differences.
  Mr. Speaker, this should be a very good bill. As the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), said to the Committee on 
Rules the other day, this bill could have been considered under 
suspension, except for one provision. That provision is nothing less 
than an unfair handout to a handful of airports scattered across this 
country.
  The bill would allow small airports to use up to $1.1 million of 
Airport Improvement Program funds to build or equip an air traffic 
control tower to be operated under the FAA's Contact Tower Program. 
This is not controversial. In fact, if this were the sole scope of the 
bill, it would have unanimously passed the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, and it probably would unanimously pass the House 
today.
  Unfortunately, the bill also contains a provision that takes 
approximately $30 million of AIP funds to enhance airport security and, 
instead, uses these funds to reimburse airports for air traffic control 
towers previously built.

                              {time}  1115

  These towers were constructed under an expressed agreement that the 
Federal Government would pay the cost of staffing the tower but not the 
construction costs. Mr. Speaker, this provision is bad policy, plain 
and simple. When I was a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I voted against the inclusion of this provision of the 
bill. In fact, I so strongly disagreed with this provision that I 
signed the dissenting views.
  Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of this provision is unfortunate, and it 
should be stricken from the bill. The rule allows the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to offer an amendment to do just that. The 
gentleman from Minnesota's amendment does the right thing by leveling 
the playing field for all airports. His amendment strikes the 
controversial provision from the bill. Small airports across the 
country can still use airport improvement funds to build control towers 
in the future. Under the Oberstar amendment, the 26 airports covered by 
the provision would not receive retroactive funding for the 
construction of their towers which were built without any expectation 
of Federal funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this open rule, and I support the gentleman 
from Minnesota's amendment; and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I appreciate her management of this rule. I also want to compliment 
my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for 
pointing to the fact that we have proceeded with an open-amendment 
process here. Obviously, if we look back at September 11, and a great 
deal of time has been focused understandably talking about the tragic 
circumstances that surrounded that day and all of the action that we in 
this Congress and that President Bush have taken to respond to it, 
dealing with airport safety is a very high priority.
  And as we have looked at some of the proposed regulations that have 
come forward as it deals with small aircraft, it seems to me that this 
legislation which will deal with the challenge of ensuring that we have 
the safety precautions taken and a degree of flexibility for small 
airports is the right thing to do. I think that we have been able to 
move ahead with again, as I said, an open-amendment process which is 
right on target; and while I oppose the Oberstar amendment and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat it, I do support the gentleman from Minnesota's 
(Mr. Oberstar) right to offer that amendment.
  As we look at this extremely challenging time, there are a lot of 
small airports that have been unable to take advantage of the AIP 
funding, and this legislation will provide that opportunity for 
utilization of those very important funds.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this rule, oppose the Oberstar 
amendment which will be considered under the open-amendment process; 
and after we defeat that amendment, support this very important 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H3730]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to first off rise in support of the 
Oberstar amendment, which I think is a very wise legislative proposal 
to protect these dollars against being used retroactively; and after an 
agreement has been reached and a deal struck, a deal should be a deal. 
I also, though, want to express my concerns about the airport 
improvement program, the way it is run by the FAA and how it impacts on 
local communities. There is a community airport in my district in 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, called Wings Field. It has been there 
for many, many years; and it is a community asset. As a county 
commissioner, when the private owners wanted to sell it, I cooperated 
with my colleagues to try to create a county authority to buy it so 
that we could keep it as a community asset and as a valuable 
transportation program, an asset in our suburban county outside of 
Philadelphia. The community was concerned about that, did not want it 
to go into public hands, and that authority was disbanded.
  The pilots that were using Wings Field then bought the field 
themselves and have undertaken some improvement programs which I think 
were meritorious. Specifically, they applied for an airport improvement 
program grant and received it for about $3 million to extend the 
runway, which I believe made the airport safer. It was controversial in 
the community, but I think it was the right thing to do.
  The problem was that there was no public discussion, that the owners, 
the new pilot group owning the airport, applied to the FAA quietly 
without involving the local township supervisors who had been deeply 
involved in zoning matters and such affecting this airport.
  They did not tell the county commissioners, the current board deeply 
involved in the affairs of this airport, and did not notify the Member 
of Congress, myself, from the community; and I have also been deeply 
involved in promoting this airport. I am a friend of Wings Field, but 
it has transpired that this grant was approved without notice in a way 
that generated great public outcry.
  Pennsylvania is a block grant State when it comes to aviation 
dollars, and we all thought and had been told that any Federal money 
coming to Pennsylvania would go through this block grant program. There 
would be transparency, and people would understand when money was being 
applied for and when money was being appropriated, and there would be 
notice. These airport programs might still be controversial, but there 
should be notice and understanding. That did not happen. The ownership 
group applied directly to the FAA and got $3.5 million to extend the 
runway. The merits of that runway are very real, but the process is 
terrible.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the committee will, next year, when I 
understand from the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), that his committee will be dealing with FAA 
renewal and reauthorization, that the committee will look at how the 
FAA deals with the airport improvement program.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
issue.
  In general it is a standing principle that any AIP funds, any project 
that is AIP funded, must conform to the Federal rules and regulations, 
which include the public-hearing process.
  Since this is a block grant program, I think we would have to review 
the conditions under which Pennsylvania manages that program and may 
want to amend the requirements in next year's reauthorization of FAA 
programs to ensure that States in their block grant program comply with 
the public notification issue that the gentleman has raised here. I 
fully sympathize with the gentleman's position.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. There was an end-run 
done here, and I hope that it will not happen again.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the sponsor and author 
of H.R. 1979.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her fine statement on behalf of the rule and the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf 
of this bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for moving this bill through 
their committee so it could be brought to the floor today, and I 
appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
and the Committee on Rules for providing the House with a fair and open 
rule.
  I introduced H.R. 1979 a year ago after listening to the people who 
run small regional airports in my home State of Mississippi. A common 
concern of the airport managers is that their airports lack the 
necessary facilities and equipment to guide commercial jets and private 
planes safely. But this is not just a worry in small-town Mississippi. 
It is commonplace throughout America. Smaller airports depend on 
Federal money provided through the airport improvement program, AIP, 
for capital improvements.
  However, the program that is designed to improve the safety and 
efficiency of our national aviation system does not allow airports to 
use AIP money to construct and equip control towers, and that is what 
this bill is about today. The bill before us today corrects this 
situation by giving our airports the option to use their AIP funds to 
construct or equip contract control towers. If more airports are able 
to use the most up-to-date safety equipment, accidents will be 
prevented and lives will be saved. Air traffic controllers will be able 
to verify the position of planes all over America, not just around the 
airports at larger cities.
  Unfortunately, there are many examples of the type of accident we are 
trying to prevent today. On February 8, 2000, over Zion, Illinois, two 
planes collided, crashing into a residential area. All of the 
passengers were killed. Debris from the accident fell on residential 
streets and the Midwestern Regional Medical Center where the windows 
were blown out and two hospitals workers were burned. At the time of 
the accident, the controllers at the Waukegan Airport directed traffic 
based only on the pilots' reports of their locations. A student pilot 
reported on her position inaccurately, and the controllers had no way 
to confirm her position. After a study of this accident, the National 
Transportation Safety Board issued a report on April 27, 2001, stating, 
``Preliminary findings indicate if the Waukegan tower had been equipped 
with a terminal radar display at the time of the accident, the 
controller could have confirmed the pilots' position reports and 
established a more effective sequencing plan, thereby preventing the 
accident.''
  However, the equipment the National Transportation Safety Board said 
the airport needed is very expensive. It is just the type of safety 
precautionary equipment for which the AIP program should be utilized. 
This legislation will make that possible.
  Since this and other accidents, many airports have found room in 
tight budgets to equip their control towers with terminal radar 
displays. But this is not an option for airports which do no even have 
a tower yet.
  On June 23, 2000, 2 and a half miles from the Boca Raton, Florida, 
airport, a Learjet collided with a stunt plane, killing four people. 
Wreckage of the planes fell on a heavily populated golf course and 
community. At the time of the accident, neither pilot was talking to 
controllers to verify their respective positions because the airport 
did not have a tower to house an air traffic controller.
  While the most important goal of this legislation is to improve 
safety in our skies, there are additional benefits. Building and 
equipping more control towers will provide relief for our congested air 
traffic system as more reliever airports are created, and rural 
communities will be more attractive for economic development prospects 
as air travel opportunities increase.
  This commonsense legislation does not direct more money to any 
particular airport. All the bill does is give airports more options to 
use funds which they are already going to receive from the Federal 
Government.
  I expect a good portion of the debate today will be about an 
amendment

[[Page H3731]]

which I expect the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to offer. It 
is my understanding the ranking member of the full committee plans to 
offer an amendment which would strike a portion of the bill concerning 
possible reimbursement for airports which have built and equipped their 
control towers since October 1996. I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment.
  The purpose of this section in the bill is to provide support to 
airports that depleted their reserves or increased their bonded 
indebtedness to provide an optimum level of safety and security at 
their airports. During a time when regional airports are struggling, 
removing debt or replenishing reserves would allow airports to complete 
projects that are not AIP eligible or to comply with unfunded Federal 
security mandates, thereby further enhancing security and safety at 
airports. This is a budget-neutral position which will not direct any 
money to any airports. All the section does is give airports the 
ability to reimburse a portion of their expenses with a cap of $1.1 
million. Of the only 21 airports which will be eligible for 
reimbursement, most will not even be able to reach the $1.1 million cap 
since many of the airports utilize funding streams which are not 
eligible for reimbursement.
  During the debate, the ranking member may argue that the 
reimbursement provision of this legislation will negatively affect the 
safety of the national airport system. I believe nothing could be 
further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The 21 airports that have built 
towers have been proactive in providing the same level of safety at 
their regional airports as the large hub airports provide, and in the 
process have enhanced security of the national airport system.

                              {time}  1130

  I believe these airports should be rewarded for their proactive 
consideration. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Oberstar 
amendment which would strip this valuable portion of the legislation.
  In closing, I look forward to the debate. Once again, I thank the 
Rules Committee for a fair rule. I look forward to the enactment of 
this legislation, which will increase safety for all Americans. I urge 
a vote in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 1979.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules and the remarks of the gentleman from 
Mississippi. Were it not for the reimbursement provision, I would say, 
this bill would not be on the Union Calendar. We would have disposed of 
it on the suspension calendar. We could have even brought it on 
unanimous consent. But because of an egregious provision that the Law 
and Order Caucus, ordinarily on the other side of the aisle, would not 
support, we have to take this up in the current procedure, and, that 
is, the reimbursement provision. It is really akin to the painter who 
comes up to your front door, paints the door and says, Look what a 
great job I did. It was in such bad shape. It was a terrible-looking 
front door. Now it looks wonderful. Pay me. There was no contract. 
There was no agreement. Every one of the 20 or 21 airports that will be 
windfall beneficiaries of this provision in the bill knew what they 
were getting into, I say to the gentleman.
  We discussed this when the gentleman first proposed this before he 
even introduced his bill a year ago. I am for the purposes of your 
legislation except for the reimbursement. They signed a contract with 
the FAA. They knew what they were getting into. They knew they had to 
build a tower in order for the FAA to operate that tower. It is not 
right to come back and say, Oh, gosh, why don't you reimburse us for 
being good guys and building this tower even though we knew it was our 
obligation, even though we knew we had to pay for it.
  What this amendment is going to allow is these airports to reach out 
into the future, into the entitlement that we provided for small 
airports in AIR-21, and I was a proponent of it, to give small airports 
an entitlement. Over many years we had expanded the funding available 
for small airports going back to the passenger facility charge of 1990 
where large airports had to yield half of their entitlement funds, 50 
cents, their entitlement for every dollar of PFC that then went into a 
small airport development fund, to increase the amount of money going 
out to upgrade airports at the end of the spokes in the hub-and-spokes 
system of aviation. That amounted to an $800 million set-aside for 
small airports every year from 1990 forward.
  In addition to that, I said, Fine. We ought to have an entitlement 
now for small airports because some of them are not getting that money. 
That is $150,000 a year. Those airports, at $1.1 million average, will 
soak up 7 future years of their entitlement money. Then what is going 
to happen, those airports are going to come back to their Members of 
Congress and say, Goodness, we've run out of money. Can you help us get 
more funds? Are we supposed to then bail them out twice?
  They agreed to this provision. The basic bill is prospective. It 
says, in the future we will fund these kinds of projects on a request 
basis. But we should not go back in time and pay for something that an 
airport agreed to do on their own. The airport program has limited 
dollars, limited funding. It is a cooperative program. The Federal 
Government, State and local each has to do their part. The part of the 
small airports and the airport authority was to get an agreement. If 
they could not comply, if they could not meet the benefit-cost 
standard, then they had to go and build the tower themselves and the 
FAA comes in and operates that tower. They are not shouldering the 
whole responsibility themselves. The Federal Government, the FAA, is 
paying for the operation of that tower and the air traffic controllers.
  Absent the reimbursement provision, which is simply a windfall 
benefit, unjustified, the rest of the bill is good, is needed, will 
serve security and safety enhancement and capacity needs in the future. 
But we ought to defeat that provision of the bill. Under any other 
circumstance, I cannot imagine any other Member of this body supporting 
something like that. We do not do it in the Corps of Engineers, we do 
not do it in the Federal highway program, and we ought not to be doing 
it in the small airport program.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), my distinguished 
colleague and classmate and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, I want to speak on the rule. That is what this 
particular issue is about, the resolution before us to debate this 
important piece of legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my classmate. We were elected 
together. We served at times under a regime when rules were not open, 
when you did not even get an opportunity to present in a fair manner 
your opposition. I commend both the gentleman from California and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio for their operation of a Rules Committee that 
gives everybody a fair opportunity to be heard.
  As we have heard the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), say, this is a fairly noncontroversial 
measure. It is an important measure because it does address safety at 
our small airports. We heard the sponsor of the legislation, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), cite instances where 
unfortunately many of our aviation accidents are at small airports that 
do not have one of the most important features, which is an air traffic 
control tower, in their facilities. It is an important issue, and it 
would be noncontroversial except for one or two possible amendments. 
The most difficult of those amendments, which has again been given an 
opportunity to be heard here on the floor in open fairness and debate, 
is the Oberstar amendment.
  But let me speak just a moment about the legislation. The legislation 
was crafted in a very fair and reasonable fashion, I believe, and that 
is to

[[Page H3732]]

provide assistance to these small airports to put in part of their 
facility. Runways may be important and safety lights may be important 
and other infrastructure improvements at our small aviation and general 
aviation facilities may be important; but, Mr. Speaker, there is 
nothing more important than an air traffic control tower.
  This particular legislation makes possible using basically 
entitlement money, aviation improvement fund moneys which are 
available, some of it is capped for smaller airports, some of it is 
based on passenger revenue for other commercial facilities, but that is 
money that really is an entitlement to these local airports to use in 
an optional manner. This is an option in the manner in which they think 
is best and best serves safety purposes. Certainly nothing can be a 
bigger safety measure than an air traffic control tower. That, we all 
agree upon.
  The issue that is in debate is whether those small communities who 
have dipped into their own pocket and taken the initiative to make a 
major safety improvement and expend their own funds can make a 
determination as to whether they want to use their future funds which 
they are entitled to, anyway, for reimbursement. What could be a fairer 
presentation? And not to cut off these communities who have taken an 
initiative, who have looked out for the most important interest, and 
that is the safety of the pilots and the aircraft and passengers coming 
into these smaller airports. Nothing can be a better utilization of 
funds. Why should we as Congress, why should we in Washington tell 
these communities what they can do with their funds when they already 
have the option of spending them in any manner in which they make the 
improvement?
  The Members that may be listening, Mr. Speaker, from Arizona, from 
California, from Colorado, from Florida, from Georgia, from Idaho, from 
Illinois, from Indiana, from Kansas, from Louisiana, also from 
Minnesota, from Mississippi, from Missouri, from New Hampshire, from 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 
Virginia, Wisconsin and other States will be entitled to use their 
funds for this. Why should we penalize those from the States of Texas, 
Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Maryland, Florida, Wyoming, Arizona, 
Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma and others who 
have taken the initiative? This is a fairness issue. This is not an 
egregious misuse, as we have heard it termed, of funds. It is a 
fairness issue to all the Members and to all the local communities and 
to safety improvements in these small airports across our Nation.
  The rule is fair. It could not be a fairer rule, to take time to 
debate this issue on which we disagree. We agree on the larger part. I 
have worked with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He is one 
of the champions in the House of safety and the transportation 
improvements, infrastructure improvements across the Nation. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member, he does an 
excellent job working together. We disagree on this one issue. I view 
this as a fairness issue. I view this as a Washington knows best, knows 
all and will-tell-you-exactly-how-to-do-it issue, and that is not fair.
  Let us be fair. I think we need to oppose the Oberstar amendment. We 
need to first pass this rule which again allows for open, free, fair 
debate. Again I commend the Rules Committee on that. I ask first that 
we pass the rule and then that we oppose the Oberstar amendment and 
that we allow again local governments to do what they know is best and 
that is make those safety improvements and not be penalized for having 
made good decisions in the past.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to respond to something that the gentleman from Florida 
said. He praised the Rules Committee for the new openness and condemned 
past rules that have been more restrictive.
  I just want to say to the gentleman that wait until the next rule 
that is coming up on the Trade Adjustment Act. It is probably one of 
the most restrictive, antidemocratic rules that I think I have ever 
seen in my life. It is so restrictive and so strange, in fact, that the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from California, 
last night said that what the committee was doing was unprecedented.
  I hope that given the fact that the gentleman has expressed his 
support for open and more democratic rules, that he will be on the 
floor fighting the defeat of that rule when it comes up later today.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Possibly he views 
this rule in a different light. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 
and I were here in a different era and we saw much more oppressive 
operations of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. You ain't seen nothing yet until you 
have seen the rule that is going to come up this afternoon, believe me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of 
this rule. It is a breath of fresh air that we are getting this kind of 
fair and open rule from the Republican majority. But I also rise to 
support the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, which seeks to prevent the 
diversion of funds from the Airport Improvement Program.
  Like the ranking member, I am not opposed to the underlying 
provisions of the bill, which seek to expand the eligibility of the AIP 
program to include future construction of contract towers. I am, 
however, opposed to allowing airports to be reimbursed for work that 
has already been completed by airport improvement entitlements that are 
due for others in the future.
  As a matter of equity, the 26 airports that would be eligible for 
reimbursement had no reasonable expectations that Federal funds would 
cover construction of their contract towers. If we now allow these 
airports to recover their costs under this AIP program, it sends the 
message to other airports that any contract fairly entered into with 
the FAA can be overturned when they get ready, if they can muster the 
support in Congress. So it is a matter of principle.
  I also understand that the 26 airports that are eligible to be 
reimbursed have an estimated $252 million in safety, security and 
capacity needs. If future airport improvement entitlements are diverted 
to work on contract towers that have already been completed, these 26 
airports could face a major funding shortfall in the future.
  Essentially what this amendment seeks to do is prevent these 26 
airports from double-dipping from their short-sighted attempt to 
mortgage their future. I ask my colleagues to support the Oberstar 
amendment and to oppose final passage if the Oberstar amendment is not 
adopted.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Rehberg) a freshman Member of this body and a great addition, as well 
as a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today in favor of the rule, I think it 
is a fair rule, but definitely in opposition to the Oberstar amendment.
  Let me lay out a scenario for you. I do not know about the other 25 
airports that are under consideration, but I can tell you about one in 
the State of Montana. Over the course of the years, and we can debate 
whether it is because of mismanagement of our forests or whatever you 
want, we have more forest fires than we ever had before. Starting in 
1988, we have had practically a forest fire every single year, and, in 
fact, in the year 2000, we got up to 1 million acres of Montana burned. 
This last year Glacier Park was on fire.
  We have an airport called the Glacier International Airport near 
Glacier Park, it is in Kalispell, Montana, that has 100 airplanes that 
fly every day. We are not talking about small planes, we

[[Page H3733]]

are talking about large planes, because it is a destination point.
  Unfortunately, during the fire season that increases to 200 a day. 
And what are the other 100? They are bombers, they are tankers, they 
are helicopters. Now, envision for a minute, you are in the mountains, 
you are at 10,000 feet, you are flying around as a private pilot, and 
you have got helicopters and bombers going around dropping their 
retardant, going back to the airport, going up in the air, going back 
to the airport, going up in the air, and you are a traveler in the 
middle of all of this. And do you know what happened? They did not have 
a tower. The Federal Government would not help them build a tower.
  So this last year, finally, after all these years of fires, this 
small community came to the conclusion, for the safety of the air 
traveler and because the Federal Government was not helping them, they 
would go ahead and tax themselves to build this tower.
  Now, what were they using for a tower before? Every time these fires 
started, the Forest Service and the FAA would bring in a trailer, and 
the FAA would charge the Forest Service for this trailer. So this 
community not only made the decision to increase their own safety 
aspects, but they also saved the Federal Government the charges of 
having to bring that trailer in every year, displace workers, try and 
deal with the safety aspects of fighting those fires.
  It is only fair that we recognize the construction costs of the 
safety aspect of this small community, because it is something that the 
Federal Government did not do and they did for themselves.
  So, if nothing else, if you are looking at it from a fiscal 
standpoint. If you are trying to save the Federal Government some 
dollars, this small community, by having built this control tower, did, 
in fact, save the money. They should be reimbursed for it, and then 
they ought to be patted on the back for taking the initiative to save 
lives, rather than slapped in the face by the amendment that is a one-
size-fits-all, and it might fit the other 25, but it certainly does not 
fit the case that I have laid out today.
  I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity. I hope we will pass the 
bill, I hope we will pass the bill offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), and I hope we will defeat the Oberstar 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  First of all, I want to say I agree with about 99 percent of this 
bill, but there is 1 percent of the bill I do not agree with, and that, 
of course, is the portion of the bill that gives a reimbursement to 
these airports who built towers, knowing full well that the Federal 
Government was not going to pay for the construction of these towers.
  In AIR-21 we passed the law saying that if a local airport, a small 
local airport, wanted to build a tower, the Federal Government would 
then pay for the contract air traffic controllers. That was the law. 
That is still the law today.
  What we are doing here really is changing the rules of the game after 
the game has been played. These local small airports signed an 
agreement with the FAA saying that they would build the local tower 
with their money, knowing full well they would never get reimbursement 
for it, if the FAA would pay for the contract air traffic controllers. 
That is what has happened.
  These small airports receive about $150,000 a year from the AIP fund. 
If we grant them reimbursement, they will be spending their AIP money 
for the next 7 or 8 years on something that they constructed a number 
of years ago.
  The worst part of this piece of the legislation is the fact that 
these same airports have requested $258 million in security 
improvements because of 9/11. If we do not pass the Oberstar amendment, 
that means that these airports will not be able to make any security 
improvements, which they contend they need to the tune of $258 million, 
until they have been fully reimbursed for their towers that they never 
had any expectation for being reimbursed for. So, to me, the most 
reasonable, practical, fair thing to do is pass the Oberstar amendment.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), another member of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of this legislation 
and of the rule. It is unusual for those of us who are Members of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be here today in 
controversy. We almost always resolve our differences before we reach 
the House floor, and in this case we were unable to do so.
  Unlike the gentleman from Illinois, I find support for 100 percent, 
not just 99 percent, but 100 percent of this legislation, and in 
particular I would like to highlight the importance of the contract 
tower program to places across the country, especially places in rural 
America where contract tower services provide the only air traffic 
control that our passengers or airlines have.
  An example is the community in my district, Garden City, Kansas, 
population approximately 30,000 people. It has commercial service 
eastbound to Kansas City, westbound to Denver, and a general aviation 
component that is significant as well. They are a contract tower city, 
which means that the Federal Government does not have to pay for all of 
its tower services, and that community made a decision, prior to 
passage of AIR-21, in support of a contract tower. The tower is built.
  All this bill does, in addition to supporting contract towers 
generally, is allow places like Garden City, Kansas, to utilize money 
that they would receive anyway. They are an entitlement airport, will 
receive approximately $1 million of AIP funding, entitlement funding, 
and they have the option, if they so choose, unless the gentleman's 
amendment passes, they have the option, the flexibility to decide our 
highest priority is to pay for the contract tower previously built.
  It has $1 million coming to Garden City's airport regardless, and 
this legislation that allows them to be reimbursed does not detract 
from any other airport in the country. It does not take any money from 
the airport in any other community. It simply allows the community of 
Garden City or any other community that has built a contract tower 
prior to the passage of AIR-21 to use money they are going to receive 
anyway for purposes of reimbursing the city for that contract tower 
construction.
  It is an issue that allows local units of government, our local 
airports, the flexibility to decide where their priorities are, and 
does not take money away from any other community. I do not know 
whether my community would choose that or not, but I believe in that 
flexibility.
  Support the rule, support the bill, and oppose the amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the previous speaker, 
we are talking about $150,000 a year would be the allocation. The 
towers cost over $1 million. So you are basically talking about 8 to 10 
years of the allocation that will be diverted from safety, security and 
other issues for a retroactive, unanticipated reimbursement for an 
unqualified project.
  Now, we could do this pretty broadly. There is a whole lot of things 
airports have done out there that were not qualified that were 
expensive projects. My city of Eugene is still paying for their 
terminal expansion. Maybe we ought to qualify those sorts of things, 
because they did it before we authorized PFCs. We could change the 
Highway Trust Fund to reimburse a whole host of State and local 
projects that are not currently eligible.
  The point is there is a limited amount of money to do an 
extraordinary amount of work, and particularly in these days we are 
very concerned about the safety and security issues. These airports, 
with this retroactive, unanticipated dedication of their AIP money for 
8 to 10 years, a lot of that work will not get done for 8 to 10 years. 
Yes, it will be a little bit of a windfall they did not anticipate, 
but,

[[Page H3734]]

unfortunately, a whole lot of other needs will go unmet, maybe critical 
security needs, which may lead to another disaster.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), 
a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker) for introducing H.R. 1979 for which I am a proud 
cosponsor. The Small Airport Safety, Security and Air Service 
Improvement Act would change the law to allow small airports to not 
only use their AIP money to build a new or replacement FAA contract 
tower, but also to use AIP funds to equip their tower facilities.
  This legislation is very important to my rural Third District of 
Arkansas. Currently I have three contract towers in my district located 
at the Fayetteville, Springdale and Northwest Arkansas Regional 
Airports. In addition, a fourth airport in my hometown of Rogers, 
Arkansas, has recently begun construction on their tower. What is 
amazing is all of these airports are within a 30-mile radius of each 
other.
  We have been blessed with a booming economy in this part of the 
State, and, therefore, we have a large volume of business travelers. 
Rogers Airport is the second busiest airport in the State in terms of 
flight Operations, and Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport is the 
second busiest airport in the State in terms of passengers. With four 
very busy airports all within a very close proximity, we have extremely 
crowded airspace. Most of the flights coming into my airports originate 
from large hubs. The planes are passed from FAA towers to airports that 
generally do not even have radar screens.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1979 would allow the airports of the third district 
of Arkansas who operate under a visual flight rule to use their AIP 
funds to acquire the terminal radar displays which they so desperately 
need to monitor the busy airspace. I fly home almost every weekend, and 
each time I am thankful that my airports had the visionary foresight to 
build contract towers. They have increased air safety exponentially 
with the addition of the towers.
  I fully support H.R. 1979, which would give local authorities the 
ability to use their AIP money to fund the construction, renovation, 
and equipage of their contract tower.
  Allowing airports to use their AIP money for contract towers promotes 
local control and advocates safety. Who knows the needs of our airports 
better than the local airport managers? I hope all rural districts can 
benefit from the contract towers as my district has.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  As we sum up the debate on the rule, again, I think this is a fair 
rule, as the major question under consideration, the major amendment 
that will be before us has been given the opportunity for full, open, 
fair consideration in a responsible fashion by the Committee on Rules. 
So I ask my colleagues to support this, again, fair rule. If anyone 
knows of any amendments that were not allowed to be considered, come 
forth now and speak, but otherwise forever hold your peace, because 
this was done in a fair and open manner.
  The major amendment that will be considered and the major controversy 
on an otherwise noncontroversial bill is again the question of 
reimbursement. I cannot think of anything more classic than this issue. 
This has been the debate since the beginning of this Republic, and that 
is how much power should be made in Washington, if Washington knew best 
or local people knew best.
  Did my colleagues hear the plea of the last freshman representative, 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman)? He came up and he said that 
the local representatives, the local people knew best what to do with 
their funds. That is the basic question here: Do local people know how 
to use their funds?
  Then we heard someone from the opposing side say, ``use up all of 
`their' money.'' That is really what we are talking about. It is their 
money, and letting them make their decisions, and tie up their funds, 
again using the term used by the other side, for 8 or 10 years. Well, 
heaven forbid that Washington should let local representatives, local 
elected officials, and local communities decide on how to use their 
money.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, if I have enough time, I will respect the 
gentleman's request; but let me finish, because I am on a very good 
roll here.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is; I can see that. That is 
why I wanted to talk with the gentleman.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we also heard from the other side 
``unqualified project.'' I wrote it down and I put quotes around this, 
``to fund and pay for an unqualified project.''
  Now, if anyone knows of any air traffic control tower that has been 
built, again, we heard the other side say that they are built with FAA 
approval, if they know an unqualified project, I want them to come 
forward and present it before the House at this time, because it is my 
understanding, and again the other side has said that these are FAA-
approved towers, and they would have to be FAA-approved towers to be 
built for air traffic control purposes, but they were termed as 
``unqualified projects.'' I think that is unfair, because a local 
community has produced a qualified project, taken a local initiative, 
and then they want to decide what to do with their money in the future. 
If it is to pay off the wise decision that they made in the past, why 
should we in Washington stand in their way?
  Then, one other issue that was brought up here about the use of AIP 
funds from the distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee, and he 
said, this could harm the use of AIP funds for security improvements. 
Well, I say to my colleagues, we are in very bad shape if we use all of 
our AIP funds when Washington dictates for security improvements and 
require local governments to make those improvements in these local 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on this 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has expired.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I have much more, and I am sorry I did not get 
to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) so that he can engage in and continue the 
discussion.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the 
distinguished chairman if he believes in the sanctity of contracts. 
When one signs an agreement, when one signs a contract, does one live 
up to it?
  Mr. MICA. Yes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. And I think that happened here, as the gentleman 
full well knows.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this is a 
question of paying for the contract.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, let us throw out all of the other 
extraneous matters. These airport authorities signed an agreement with 
the FAA. This is not about Federal dollars, local dollars, who is in 
charge or whatever. They signed an agreement that said they will build 
the tower; the FAA will operate that tower. They entered into it, full 
well knowing that they had to pay that cost.
  Now, we are about to give them a windfall benefit. That is not right, 
and the gentleman knows that.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would agree 
with the gentleman, and they have signed that contract, they have made 
that improvement. But I think that they are also entitled to take their 
money for the future and pay off any obligations that they have 
incurred.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is what the 
underlying bill does, and for the future, but not for the past.
  Mr. MICA. And we do not want to penalize them for their past positive 
actions.

[[Page H3735]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. No. We want them to live up to their contract. That is 
the point.
  Furthermore, the reason that the tower was not approved to be built 
with FAA funds is that it did not meet FAA benefit cost requirements.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding on this 
question of a contract, because I think that is going to be the subject 
of a lot of debate during his amendment.
  There is no question that we can hold these people to this contract; 
but I think the question for this House is, is it fair to hold to a 
contract under the law as it was, an airport that did the right thing, 
that said, we are going to do what is necessary for public safety?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they entered into an 
agreement fully knowing what that entailed; and if the gentleman from 
Mississippi and I enter into an agreement for me to buy his car, and I 
come back and say, gee whiz, I paid too high a price for that car; can 
the gentleman cut it back? The gentleman would say, wait a minute, you 
agreed to that price. Pay me the price.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am 
not sure that analogy is exactly correct.
  I would just say this. The gentleman is exactly right. We have the 
weight of the Federal Government, and we can hold them to that contract 
if we want to. I do not think it is fair, and I think that is what the 
majority of the committee was saying.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is fair because, in 
the first place, that tower cannot qualify for the tower program. It 
did not meet the benefit-cost analysis. The airport authority knew it, 
and said, we will build the tower, and you operate it, Federal FAA; and 
that is what is at issue.
  For the future, going forward, I think the underlying bill is 
appropriate, and I told the gentleman that a year ago.
  Mr. WICKER. Well, that is what we will have the debate about on the 
Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it will be on a high principle that will 
affect all of future transportation issues within the purview of this 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the Speaker how much time 
is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) has 8 minutes remaining, and the time of the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I 
think I am going to close then.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a 
long history of working together to produce bipartisan legislation. The 
ranking member of the committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Aviation, has only one problem with an otherwise good bill. This 
bill includes a provision that is nothing less than a government 
windfall for a small number of airports. These airports never expected, 
nor sought, Federal funding for building these towers. In fact, these 
airports explicitly agreed not to seek Federal funds. This should be a 
good bipartisan bill, and it still can be if we enact the Oberstar 
amendment.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the rule, which is open; to 
support the Oberstar amendment and, if the Oberstar amendment fails, I 
would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the final passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time having been yielded, without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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 419, 
nays 0, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               YEAS--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler

[[Page H3736]]


     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bonilla
     Chambliss
     Cox
     Grucci
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Isakson
     Kingston
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Peterson (PA)
     Roukema
     Tanner
     Traficant
     Weiner

                              {time}  1233

  Messrs. PAUL, BARTLETT of Maryland, and MOLLOHAN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted in 
the affirmative on rollcall No. 240, on H. Res. 447, the rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 1979, Airport Safety, Security and Air 
Service Improvement Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
447 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1979.

                              {time}  1233


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide 
assistance for the construction of certain air traffic control towers, 
with Mr. Gibbons in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to yield to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), subcommittee chairman, the balance 
of my time after I make my opening statement.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that safety is enhanced when air traffic 
controllers guide the planes through the skies and onto the runway. 
However, many smaller airports lack an air traffic control tower. As a 
result, passengers and pilots do not benefit from the safety 
enhancements provided by air traffic controllers. Pilots are on their 
own, responsible for seeing and avoiding other planes.
  Currently, the FAA is responsible for building the towers that house 
the controllers. However, FAA facilities and equipment budget is not 
large enough to pay for the construction of towers at many smaller 
airports. Yet many of these smaller airports have commercial passenger 
service or serve as a very active general aviation airport. These 
passengers and pilots are entitled to the same level of safety as those 
used in the larger airports.
  Recognizing that FAA's construction budget is limited, many smaller 
airports are willing to use their Airport Improvement Program, AIP, 
grant money to build the tower. However, under current law, contract 
tower construction is not listed as eligible for funding under the AIP 
program.
  This bill would change the law to allow AIP money to build a new or 
replacement tower and to equip that tower. The FAA could then contract 
with a private company to actually operate the tower. The FAA now 
contracts with private companies to staff towers at 217 airports in 46 
States.
  This contract tower program has benefited from consistent bipartisan 
backing in Congress. Its track record at small airports shows that it 
improves air safety, efficiency and security; enhances regional airline 
service in rural areas; provides significant savings to the FAA in air 
traffic control costs; and increases economic productivity in smaller 
communities nationwide.
  Further, the program's track record has been validated in several 
comprehensive audits by DOT's Inspector General and is endorsed by 
participating airports and aviation system users.
  Given the benefits and support for the contract tower program, 
additional actions to enhance it are warranted. By opening up another 
source of funding for tower construction, this bill will enhance the 
existing contract tower program and increase safety at small airports.
  It does not cost the Federal Government any additional money because 
the AIP grant money is already provided for in AIR-21. The bill merely 
gives the airport and the FAA another purpose, tower construction, for 
which this grant money can be used.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), the subcommittee chairman, for the purposes of 
control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) will control the remainder of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today regarding H.R. 1979, the Small Airport Safety, Security 
and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002. As noted by the previous 
speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee, I also would like to compliment at this 
time the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), for the great cooperation that I always receive and the entire 
Democratic side receives from him and his staff on all aviation 
matters.
  As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said, this measure allows 
small airports to use Federal Airport Improvement Program funds to 
construct and equip privately operated contract towers. Under current 
law, these grants cannot be used to construct airport control towers 
not operated by FAA air traffic controllers.
  I, along with every other Democratic member on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, am supportive of the primary 
provisions of H.R. 1979 to simply authorize the use of Federal funds to 
support the building of new towers. However, this measure also includes 
a provision that retroactively reimburses towers that were constructed 
under an express agreement that the Federal Government would pay the 
cost of staffing the towers but not the construction costs. I want to 
run that by everyone once again. Under this agreement, the Federal 
Government would pay the cost of staffing the towers but not the 
construction costs.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my colleague and the 
ranking member of the full committee, is going to offer an amendment 
that would eliminate the provision for retroactive reimbursement and 
keep the funds available for new airport projects to enhance safety and 
security. These 26 towers that have been built since 1996 cost on an 
average about $1.3 million. Therefore, the retroactive reimbursement 
provision of H.R. 1979 provides about $30 million in funding for work 
that has already been completed, despite the fact that these airports 
have hundreds of millions of dollars of unmet safety and security 
needs.
  By using their AIP entitlement money, which is a maximum $150,000 a 
year, these airports could be drained of entitlement funds for almost a 
decade, funds that should be used on safety, security and capacity 
enhancement improvement projects.
  In addition, these 26 airports have identified and requested from the 
Federal Aviation Administration a total of $258 million in Federal 
funding for the future AIP-eligible projects, including AIP-eligible 
security projects needed in the wake of September 11.
  If H.R. 1979 is enacted and allowed, retroactive reimbursement funds 
will not be available for needed safety and security projects. When we 
offered the amendment to strike the retroactive reimbursement provision 
in the committee, it was supported by all 34 Democratic members of the 
committee. If the provision for retroactive reimbursement is stricken 
by the Oberstar amendment, we will support the bill.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to pass a clean, fair bill, 
by supporting the Oberstar amendment to

[[Page H3737]]

strike the unfair retroactive reimbursement position.
  I am also asking Members to oppose any amendment that would weaken 
the AIP program, which is intended to pay for infrastructure costs, not 
operating costs.
  In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their work on this measure. Hopefully, we 
can pass a clean bill today with bipartisan support that rewards those 
airports that play by the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just comment in general on this legislation, and 
it is noncontroversial for the most part. It is legislation which will 
allow our small airports to receive Federal grants to build air traffic 
control towers. The construction of a control tower at these small 
airports provides important safety benefits, as controllers in the 
tower prevent planes from running into one another. So there is 
probably no more important use of Federal funds or funds from the AIP 
fund.
  Many small airports have commercial air service or are active for 
general aviation facilities, but at some of these airports there is 
today no air traffic control tower. This means that there are no air 
traffic control controllers to guide planes safely through the sky or 
along the runways. Pilots are on their own, responsible for themselves 
and for seeing and avoiding other planes.
  Unlike larger airports across the country where the FAA will build a 
tower, smaller airports will only get a tower if they build it 
themselves. Yet many lack the resources to do so, and that is why this 
legislation is important. We change the law, we change the rules, and 
we allow the Federal assistance in that effort.
  The Federal assistance will come entirely from the Airport 
Improvement Program, and the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, is 
funded by taxes on airline passenger and other aviation users. No 
general taxpayer funds will be used to support this program.
  Currently, the AIP program is used to pay for a variety of 
infrastructure improvements at our airports.

                              {time}  1245

  But air traffic control tower construction, unfortunately, is not one 
of them, despite the obvious safety benefits provided by air traffic 
control.
  This bill will allow primary passenger airports to use their AIP 
entitlements to build control towers. General aviation airports could 
use both their AIP entitlements as well as their AIP money allocated to 
the States for this particular purpose. In addition, limited 
reimbursement would be allowed for airports that have taken the 
initiative to build towers prior to the date of enactment.
  We believe that is a fairness issue. The minority has an amendment 
that will be heard in opposition, and we will get into the details of 
our opposition to the amendment they are proposing to strike this 
particular reimbursement provision.
  This is a bill that will increase safety at many of our smaller 
airports across the country. It is entirely voluntary. No airport is 
required to use their grant money to build a tower, but for those who 
want to use it, for those who have made the improvement on a limited 
basis, it will provide important safety benefits and Federal assistance 
in making those improvements.
  The bill was developed by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in a bipartisan fashion and, again, except for the 
reimbursement issue, has broad bipartisan support, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for taking the initiative 
in introducing this important legislation.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who worked closely 
with the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
on the issue. I would also like to thank the ranking member of my 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for helping 
to move this legislation along.
  I urge the passage of the legislation without the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the 
legislation as written, and I am in support of the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an exception to the usual bipartisanship that 
we usually have on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I think the history 
proves that. But H.R. 1979 allows small airports to use their Airport 
Improvement Program grant funds to build contract towers.
  Airports have signed contracts since 1996. These are contracts. Now 
what those 27 airports want to do is have us change the rules so that 
they become eligible for construction funds. This is pretty simple. The 
game is over, and they want to change the rules.
  I am a supporter of the contract towers program, as all of us are. 
The program provides worthy safety benefits to small communities and 
airports. However, the element of this bill I must rise to oppose is 
the use of the AIP funds to repay airports that have already built or 
contracted to build air traffic control towers. When an airport goes 
into contract with the Federal Government and agrees to build a tower, 
the terms of the agreement are clearly stated. If you build a tower, 
we, the Federal Government, will staff and operate it. This legislation 
ignores the agreement and changes it retroactively.
  It is a mistake to use the sparse money, the sparse resources that we 
do have to provide reimbursement to airports that built or equipped 
contract towers. These airports knew full well what was at stake when 
they agreed to build the tower, Mr. Chairman. We had a deal, and there 
is no logical reason why either party should go back on that deal right 
now. There should be no reasonable expectation of reimbursement.
  AIP funds are short enough as it is without funding previously 
constructed towers. Safety, security, and capacity enhancement 
improvements at these airports would suffer by being unable to access 
the AIP funds for possibly several years.
  A further problem with the reported bill is that it does not require 
airports seeking reimbursement to have complied with all of the 
statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to an AIP project. I 
do not think that is acceptable. If it is good for one, it is good for 
all. If we are to change the rules, change all the rules.
  Under this flawed bill, there can be reimbursement from the AIP for 
construction that did not comply with six Federal statutes, including 
the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is not chopped liver. This is 
important here. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not complied with. It 
is not fair that many properly funded towers were built in compliance 
with all Federal laws, but those that were not can get a windfall 
nonetheless.
  Finally, in preparation of FAA reauthorization next year, the House 
must not set a precedent for reimbursement of airport projects. Passing 
this legislation is a slippery slope to reimbursing projects in a host 
of categories. We must focus Federal assistance through the AIP on 
supporting future improvements, not on the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and 
support the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I rise in support of the underlying legislation 
and in opposition to the amendment that will be offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) at a later time in this debate.
  This bill was originally introduced by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker). I think it is an outstanding piece of legislation as 
drafted. It would allow small airports to use their Airport Improvement 
Program, AIP, grant money to build or equip an air traffic control 
tower that would be operated

[[Page H3738]]

under the FAA's contract tower program.
  As everybody knows in America, Florida is one of the most rapidly 
growing States in the Nation, along with many others, including Nevada, 
Arizona, and Texas. In particular, in the State of Florida, central 
Florida is one of the more rapidly growing regions in the State. I 
happen to have two airports in my congressional district that are 
experiencing a tremendous increase in demand.
  Having labored for years to try to get funding through the routine 
system for another air traffic control tower in another city in my 
district, and I can just say that one of them is the Titusville-Cocoa 
area airport, and the other is the airport in Kissimmee that we really 
have problems with.
  We have problems in the State of Florida with building towers, 
replacing old antiquated towers with new towers, and I see this as a 
little bit of a light at the end of the tunnel. I think it needs to be 
approved out of the House. I would strongly encourage, particularly all 
my colleagues who are in rapidly growing areas, to oppose the Oberstar 
amendment.
  In particular, I want to say that this really is, for me personally, 
about safety. We have a tremendous issue with small planes mixing in 
with commercial aircraft. We have had accidents in my congressional 
district where people have died. So I would highly encourage a ``no'' 
on the Oberstar amendment and support of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The base bill, H.R. 1979, Small Airport Safety, Security and Air 
Service Improvement Act, is an excellent piece of legislation. It will 
expand AIP eligibility criteria to allow small airports to construct 
and equip air traffic control towers and to participate then in the 
contract tower program.
  Now, if we stuck with current law, the FAA might or might not fund 
some of these projects. I have been trying to get one funded in my 
district where there is a strong need. It would be many years before 
they could meet the need because they have much more pressing 
requirements on their availability of funds for the largest airports. 
So an expansion, as envisioned in this bill, is good.
  In fact, for example, we heard earlier about the issue of 
firefighting. I will talk about in my district the airport that now has 
had substantial recurring growth which merits a contract tower in Coos 
Bay-North Bend. Actually, a few years ago, we had a tanker go aground, 
and we were up to 300 operations a day between the Coast Guard and 
other people who were involved in that recovery operation. And so the 
National Guard had to bring in a temporary control tower. We could not 
safely operate the airport.
  Since that time, traffic has grown because of construction of two 
fabulous new golf courses down in Bandon and general growth of the 
community and some improved commuter service to Coos Bay-North Bend. So 
they very much want to go ahead, but it is also a community that 
suffers high unemployment and does not have a tremendous amount of 
available capital. So this program will work well for them. They can go 
ahead with the contract tower. They can bond it by being able to 
demonstrate that they will have the cash flow to pay off the bonds.
  The only dissident note here is the retroactive reimbursement of 
communities who have already paid for towers. Now, I was a little 
confused by the gentleman before me because he said Members in rapidly 
growing areas should oppose the Oberstar amendment. No, actually, the 
opposite is true. Members from rapidly growing areas should support the 
Oberstar amendment and support the overall bill, because the Oberstar 
amendment is about retroactively reimbursing communities that have 
already paid for contract towers.
  And as we heard very eloquently, the gentleman before me from New 
Jersey explained how unfair this would be, particularly in terms of 
normal Federal contracting process, capability and eligibility of AIP 
funds, and a host of other issues. And as I spoke earlier, it is also a 
safety and security issue.
  These airports that do not have now and need to fund the tower, they 
have already funded it, but do have pressing security capacity and 
safety needs, would be diverting those funds from the security, safety 
and capacity to retroactively reimburse themselves for money that they 
never expected and, in fact, signed a contract saying they knew they 
would not be reimbursed for.
  We are changing the rules of the game. If we are going to start doing 
that with trust funds, whoa, we have a lot of bridges that could use 
some reimbursement and a few other things I would like to sell my 
colleagues here.
  This is a very bad precedent. These communities did not expect and do 
not now need to be reimbursed. We should not jeopardize the program or 
the bill in that way, because I understand there is substantial Senate 
opposition to that provision. We should go forward with the base bill, 
which will help rapidly growing communities, which will help secure 
their air safety in the future and help them move forward with the 
contract tower program.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  In February 2000, our Chicago area lost one of our most beloved and 
charismatic personalities. For years, Bob Collins delighted listeners 
on the most popular Chicago radio station, WGN.
  An avid pilot, an aircraft expert, a leading advocate of general 
aviation, Bob was lost in a tragic midair collision near Waukegan 
Airport in my district. Two others lost their lives in the accident 
that resulted from inaccurate and insufficient information available to 
controllers at the airport.
  Unfortunately, it took the death of a prominent and much admired 
figure in our community to wake up people to the woeful state of 
technology at the smaller general aviation airports. Waukegan quickly 
acted to upgrade its facility and installed the terminal radar display 
to dramatically reduce the risk of repeating the tragedy. We did not 
install a new $2 million radar, we simply added a $60,000 data port to 
bring the radar data in from O'Hare. Such an improvement is appropriate 
for all airports in the country, urban, suburban and rural, and we do 
not seek reimbursement for this improvement.
  This legislation is crucial to bringing our aviation infrastructure 
into the 21st century. At a time when homeland security is of paramount 
importance, we have an opportunity to enhance our ability to monitor 
our air traffic situations and to do so for airports that currently do 
not have this capability.

                              {time}  1300

  We have to set aside parochialism, and I urge Members to adopt this 
legislation which will help new airports gain this capability over ones 
that already have it.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to raise my concerns about H.R. 1979, and signal 
my objections to the parts of it I believe should not be in the bill. I 
very much associate my remarks with what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) and several other speakers said earlier.
  As we have already heard, within the bill exists a provision which 
retroactively reimburses 26 small airports for building air traffic 
control towers. H.R. 1979, without the aforementioned provision, is a 
good bill. And if the provision is removed, I will be happy to lend my 
support to passing that legislation.
  But by allowing these 26 airports to qualify for that reimbursement, 
the bill will significantly reduce the amount of Federal airport 
improvement funds that would be directed towards airport security and 
safety improvements. That is precisely what has happened to one of the 
airports within my congressional district, the Southeast Texas Regional 
Airport.
  We tried our best to play by the rules. We took the time to go 
through the system, to win the support, putting off other priorities 
within our airport needs, to wait for our turn to build the air traffic 
control tower. We do indeed have a number of security issues that are 
facing us at that same airport.

[[Page H3739]]

  Following through with what this bill is proposing right now would 
deplete the amounts available for significant security improvements 
which remain a priority for this Congress and this country. These 26 
airports would also be reimbursed without demonstrating compliance 
with, as we have heard, Federal labor and environmental laws, including 
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
  Mr. Chairman, why is it that some of us have to follow those rules 
and others apparently will not? That is not right.
  As we have focused on providing the resources for airports to address 
the gaping security concerns in the aftermath of September 11, we have 
been bipartisan in our approach. This is an issue of security, and it 
does affect every citizen of this country who steps into an airport and 
onto an airplane. I urge Members to consider the consequences of 
shifting vital security funds to reimburse those 26 airports who chose 
to build their towers without the promise of recouping these funds.
  We built ours with the assistance of this government's funding in 
southeast Texas, but we put off other priorities to allow it to happen. 
Allowing these 26 airports exemptions from current law is bad policy, 
and will set a precedent that will take us in the wrong direction.
  I would hope that the House would find the collective wisdom to 
strike these provisions from the bill. I intend to support the Oberstar 
amendment to the bill; and if it carries, to support the legislation 
which has been put forth.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for 
introducing H.R. 1979. I also would also like to state my sincere 
opposition to the Oberstar amendment.
  One of the airports in my district, the Northwest Arkansas Regional 
Airport, otherwise known as XNA, would be eligible under the 
reimbursement provision to be reimbursed for their AIP entitlement 
funds for a portion of the costs they incurred when they built and 
equipped the tower.
  AIP entitlement funds are allocated by law to these small airports. 
This is money that the airports have a rate to as a matter of the 
formula in the law to be used for any eligible purpose. Congress has 
wisely left the decision to local authorities as to an individual 
airport's use of the entitlement funds, and this provision simply gives 
local authorities another option as they contemplate the range of 
safety, security and capacity-enhancement needs at their facility.
  From my calculations, XNA would be eligible to be reimbursed for 
roughly $177,000, which was the cost of equipping their tower. This may 
not seem to be a large amount of money, but we have experienced a 46 
percent growth in passengers over the past 5 years and are the third-
fastest-growing county in the Nation, so $177,000 goes a long way 
towards improving and expanding the facility.
  Although the tower at XNA is very small, it adds an incredible level 
of safety to the large volume of travelers, including myself, who 
utilize the airport. In northwest Arkansas, there are four airports 
located within a 30 mile radius of each other. As I mentioned, XNA is 
one of the fastest-growing airports in the country. While most airports 
experienced a detrimental decline in passengers after September 11, XNA 
continued to see a continued growth in traffic. Just a few miles away 
from XNA is the Rogers Airport, which is the second-busiest airport in 
the State in terms of flight operations. As Members can tell, the air 
space over northwest Arkansas is very crowded.
  Mr. Chairman, the addition of contract towers has improved safety in 
my region exponentially because the towers allow the air traffic 
controllers to monitor the air space and give pilots the direction they 
need. If we do not allow our airports to be reimbursed from their 
entitlement funds, we will be penalizing them for having the foresight 
to invest in public safety. I urge Members to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1979 in its current 
form unless the Oberstar amendment is adopted. H.R. 1979 would allow 26 
airports to be reimbursed, about $30 million for air traffic control 
towers already constructed. These projects date back to as far as 1996 
and are projects that airports agreed to fund with no expectation of 
being reimbursed by the Federal Government. The agreement between the 
Federal Government and the airports was that if the airports funded the 
construction of the towers that the Federal Government would provide 
the air traffic control services.
  If this legislation passes in its current form, it will remove $30 
million from the airport improvement program fund, a fund which is 
already strained. The AIP funds should be used to improve safety and 
security for our airports and not for reimbursing airports for towers 
which have been previously constructed.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation sets a bad precedent and will open the 
door for airport authorities to seek reimbursements for projects which 
are the responsibility of the local airports. I urge Members to support 
the Oberstar amendment. If the Oberstar amendment passes, I will 
support the legislation. If it fails, I urge Members to strongly oppose 
and vote against H.R. 1979.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who is the author of the bill 
before us.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that a number of Members from the 
other side of the aisle have come to the floor today and said, we 
oppose the bill in its current form and will vote for it only if the 
Oberstar amendment is approved.
  I hope that we do not create the impression here on the floor of the 
House that this is strictly a partisan issue. I certainly hope it is 
not, because I want to thank the 21 Members of the House who are 
Democrats who have cosponsored the bill in its current form without the 
Oberstar amendment having been adopted. I certainly hope we can resist 
the Oberstar amendment and pass the bill in its current committee-
approved form without adoption of the Oberstar amendment.
  If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the minority 
views of the committee with regard to this bill. One portion of the 
minority views that I would like to quote is, ``We support the concept 
of making contract air traffic control towers eligible for Federal 
assistance under the Airport Improvement Program.'' Indeed, Mr. 
Chairman, this has been said by Members of the other side of the aisle 
earlier today. It is a good idea to change the law to allow this. As a 
matter of fact, it has been stated by the leadership of the committee 
that, but for this small item of reimbursement, this would be 
unanimous, it might even go under suspension or unanimous consent. We 
are all under agreement that this change in the law should be made.
  Further quoting from the minority views, ``While we applaud the 
airports for their foresight and proactive steps to enhance safety, 
Federal funding is limited,'' referring to those airports who have 
taken the initiative, built the control towers, and are now saying 
treat us by the same rules being created today and allow us to use our 
entitlement of AIP for this purpose also.
  The minority Members seem to be saying you did the right thing, you 
enhanced safety, and you are to be commended. However, we are not going 
to allow airports the opportunity to use their AIP money for this 
purpose.
  Now the minority makes the point that Federal funding is limited, but 
I would strongly make this point: AIP money is an entitlement. It is a 
set amount, and we are not increasing or decreasing that in this bill. 
We are simply adding an allowed type of usage of the AIP money. So what 
we have this year and what we are seeing today is the government, the 
big Federal Government, coming in in the form of an action by the House 
of Representatives, and we hope by the other body

[[Page H3740]]

later on, and saying that, yes, we all agree, it is a good idea to 
change the purposes of the AIP and to add this additional usage of 
contract control towers. We are almost unanimous in doing so.
  Yet, Mr. Chairman, there are airports who just got finished building 
their own contract towers, and they come in and say we did the right 
thing, Mr. Congressman. We took the initiative. We acted in a proactive 
manner; and they say, in effect, we hope we will not be penalized and 
hope to take some of that AIP money, if we so choose, and retire our 
bonded indebtedness.

                              {time}  1315

  I think the majority of the subcommittee and the majority of the 
committee saw it that way, and I believe a majority of this House will 
see it that way, too. This is money that the airports are entitled to 
use anyway. We are simply saying, yes, thank you for being proactive 
and enhancing safety.
  People will say, well, you've got a contract. Well, the contract was 
signed because that is what the law said at that point. I would almost 
make the point, Mr. Chairman, that that contract was signed under 
duress. But we are saying as a Congress today, we can change the law, 
and we are saying on both sides of the aisle, we ought to change the 
law. We should change it. It is a good idea. It simply comes down to a 
question of fairness. We do not have to pass this bill today, Mr. 
Chairman. We certainly can hold these airports to this contract they 
signed under the old law. We can do it. The question is, is it 
egregious to let them out of their contract as my friend from Minnesota 
has said? Or is it fair to let them out of this; having changed the 
rules for everyone else in the country, for this little handful of 
airports, is it fair to hold them to that contract made under duress? I 
think most of the Members of this House today will say no, it is not 
fair. They will say that the committee version is correct, and they 
will resist voting for the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In regards to some of the things that the previous speaker had to 
say, first of all, we do change the law around here quite often, but we 
change the law for the future; very, very rarely, if ever, for the past 
to the best of my knowledge. Here, unfortunately, a portion of this 
bill is changing the law for the past.
  The previous speaker also said that we were just being fair to these 
airports. What about the other airports that would have gone ahead and 
built these towers if they knew that 5, 6, 7 years down the line, they 
were going to get reimbursed for those towers? I do not believe that is 
very fair to them.
  Getting back to the airports who are going to be reimbursed because 
of a portion of this bill, remember, they only receive $150,000 a year 
for AIP funds. If we pass this bill in its present form, they are going 
to take 7 or 8 years of AIP money paying for this tower. The same group 
of airports have asked for $258 million for safety and security in the 
future. It is going to be almost a decade before they get around to 
getting any money through the AIP program, unless you are planning on 
increasing the budget in the near future to see to it that they also 
receive moneys from the AIP fund for other things they are going to do 
in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, who is a very congenial, a very thoughtful gentleman with 
whom I had extensive discussions a year ago about this bill prior to 
his introduction of the legislation. I pointed out to him my 
reservations then. I pointed out the concerns about reimbursement to 
airports for towers built under conditions where the tower did not 
comply with FAA cost-benefit requirements. I said, ``I am fully willing 
to support the forward-looking part of this bill, because I think we 
ought to do this, but I can't have a reachback provision. It is just 
not good national policy.''
  And this is not partisan, I say to the gentleman. This is a matter of 
principle. Is it a penalty for an airport authority to ask that 
authority to live up to an agreement they signed, eyes wide open? Is it 
likewise fair to other airports who complied with the law, who met the 
benefit-cost analysis, who complied with all the provisions, some of 
which are excluded from these reimbursement airports under this 
language, complied with all the provisions of law, to come back and say 
to a select group of airports, no, you can be reimbursed without having 
to comply with the full range of Federal law and without having to meet 
the cost-benefit analysis? In fact, there are at least five of these 
airports that under no stretch of the imagination can meet the benefit-
cost analysis.
  Furthermore, the argument has been made time and again, these are 
entitlement funds for these airports. Well, they did not exist prior to 
AIR-21 as entitlement for each airport. When I was chair of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation in 1990 and we crafted the passenger facility 
charge, I insisted that for the major airports that would impose a PFC, 
half of their entitlement dollar would go into a special fund dedicated 
for small airports, for airports at the end of the spokes in the hub 
and spoke aviation system. Those dollars substantially improved the 
ability of small airports to build runways, taxiways, lighting, safety 
enhancements, security enhancements. Then we came to the AIR-21 
legislation and said, ``Let's take it a step further. Let's assure 
there is an entitlement.''
  That entitlement money, available to small airports, is not money the 
airport collected or generated in any way. These are dollars from the 
Airport Improvement Program derived from the Aviation Trust Fund, which 
is derived from the ticket tax and from a host of other taxes, on 
aviation fuel, et cetera, that go into the Airport Trust Fund. Well, 
that is a national program. Taxes are imposed on all aviation users. 
These are not revenues generated by that airport to which they have a 
claim. These are funds that are distributed under a formula the 
Congress has written that the FAA carries out and, therefore, projects 
and expenses that are approved under FAA rules, guidelines, that are 
derived from Federal law. If we change that, then you have two classes 
of small airports: One that got an entitlement and that followed by the 
rules, another one that gets reimbursed for not complying with the law 
and the rules.
  The law places limits on the use of entitlement funds by each 
airport. Those entitlement funds can be used only for projects that are 
eligible under the law. This is all about playing by the rules. It does 
not rub my heart to pain that an airport said, goodness, with our eyes 
wide open we signed this agreement. We wanted this tower so badly that 
we were willing to build the tower, and you, FAA, will operate that 
tower, but now come a few years later, now reimburse us for that 
expenditure. That is just wrong. That is just simply wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Mississippi went out in front of 
his home and paved a section of street and improved that street and 
then went to the city council in his hometown and said, ``Look what an 
improvement I made. It is safer. No one is going to have an accident. 
Reimburse me for my cost,'' they would not give him a dime. I do not 
think the gentleman would do that. He would not ask them to do that. 
But that is the analogy to what is being proposed in this legislation.
  In short, this is a national program to fund airport development in 
the national interest. It is not designed to provide free capital to 
airports to use as they see fit; rather, to comply with a body of rules 
under which everybody plays. In the future we have got a good program, 
but reaching back is a bad idea.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here again 
today in support of the contract tower program. It is a program created 
that has lots of benefits for the American traveling public, and 
certainly those who fly in and out of, commercially, our smallest 
airports across the country, as well as general aviation and their use 
of those airports.
  I am here today in support of the bill as it was approved by our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[[Page H3741]]

without additional amendments today. It is important to me that this 
legislation move forward and that we send a strong message of support 
for our contract tower program.
  There has been a lot of debate this morning as we discussed the rule, 
this afternoon as we discuss the bill, and I assume yet later today as 
we discuss the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment about whether or 
not we ought to allow airports who have already built contract towers 
prior to the passage of AIR-21 to access the dollars that are already 
coming their way, to spend those dollars on a previously built contract 
tower. Again, I would reiterate that this is an entitlement program. 
Those airports are receiving a fixed number of dollars. And this 
legislation for those communities that previously built the contract 
tower are simply deciding, we would choose to use our dollars, I guess 
they are Federal tax dollars, not necessarily dollars raised in our own 
community, but the dollars for which we are entitled under this 
program, we are making the choice that we will use those dollars for 
repaying ourselves for doing something that we should have done. I do 
not know how many communities will use that.
  The gentleman from Illinois today has indicated about the priority of 
security, and clearly Congress has focused on that issue. We have not 
addressed the issue of how we are going to pay for all the mandates we 
are creating on airports across the country to meet security needs, but 
the reality is that this is a high-priority issue, one that our folks 
can decide locally. If the belief is that we ought not retroactively 
allow airports to utilize these dollars because the highest priority is 
to pay for security, then that means we ought not be supportive of the 
bill in its entirety. We are saying that they otherwise have the choice 
of choosing between meeting the security needs, the mandates, and 
paying for them out of their entitlement dollars. That is what this 
legislation is all about. And we are saying that is okay. If you are 
going to build your contract tower today, you can make the decision 
that security takes second priority to the contract tower. But if you 
made a decision previously that the contract tower was important to 
you, then we suggest that you should decide that security is a higher 
priority.
  To suggest that the mechanism in place would create a problem in 
paying for security, that may be true of the entire bill. The concern 
that is raised here on the floor is one that I think is general not 
just to this issue of whether or not you ought to go back. I hope we do 
not lose sight that, again, we are not taking dollars from anybody 
else's airport. We are taking dollars that that airport is entitled to, 
and we are allowing them to make a decision at that local level as to 
what their highest priority is for paying.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today concerning H.R. 1979 and in support of the 
Oberstar-Lipinski amendment which will strike an improper and egregious 
provision in an otherwise good bill.
  This amendment addresses fundamental questions of fairness in 
allocating scarce resources. This is an issue of national security. Do 
we allocate funds for national security? Or, rather, do we use these 
limited funds to reimburse private airports for control towers that 
have already been built?
  In today's climate, are we not obligated to anticipate and fund 
present and future needs first? The Aviation Trust Fund, which collects 
revenues from a variety of sources, provides the dollars for airport 
improvement programs, the main source of Federal aid to airports. The 
trust fund is being quickly depleted at a time of increased demand. AIP 
funding is a finite resource, and the Federal Government places 
restrictions on its use to maximize safety and security. It is not a 
reimbursement fund for private airports.
  Allowing private airports that have already constructed towers to be 
reimbursed is a poor use of limited AIP funds. Decisions to build these 
towers were made at a local level without the expectation of a Federal 
commitment to the project. In fact, it was clear that there would be no 
such Federal participation. And as we say in Texas, a deal is a deal.
  Time and time again, our friends in the majority tell us we have to 
do more with less. We do not have sufficient AIP funds for all the 
worthy projects across the country. We should not reimburse a handful 
of private airports who clearly did not need Federal assistance in the 
first place to lay claim to a limited amount of security dollars. This 
provision is estimated to cost $30 million. That is $30 million not 
available to a new and unmet need.
  What airport security project will go unfunded? Which Member wants to 
see a critical safety improvement delayed because the funds are going 
to reimburse a few select airports?

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, our aviation infrastructure needs are great and will 
continue to grow. We cannot let any funds be spent that do not add to 
the future of the system, but merely pass for past improvements.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), also a member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation and our vice chair of that subcommittee.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
of my friend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I rise to 
take a counterposition from my friend the gentleman from Texas. The 
issue here is safety. The issue is safety as well as security.
  As an example, Concord Regional Airport in my district will lose if 
this amendment passes, but that is not the issue. The issue is not 
losing potential funding alone. The real issue is they will lose their 
ability to address vital safety needs.
  The two key components of this bill are increased safety and 
flexibility for local concerns. The number one concern of any aviator 
and the public is safety. The presence of air traffic control towers, 
where appropriate, staffed by competent professionals, greatly 
increases safety for the flying public, whether commercial or general 
aviation.
  Concord Regional is the fourth busiest airport in North Carolina. 
Local leaders in Concord had the vision to address safety concerns 
before an accident occurred, and that is what we are talking about 
here. We have a clear choice: Either we can say to our local 
governments and leaders, we are going to reward you for thinking ahead, 
thinking out into the future and addressing vital safety needs of the 
flying public and the public who are on the ground; or we are going to 
punish you for doing the things that make sense, for using common 
sense.
  I know it is contrary to Washington thinking, but common sense 
provides that these forward-thinking leaders, wherever they might be, 
have provided for vital safety concerns, and that is important to 
America, along with security.
  Many of the airports that will be eligible under this legislation are 
located near metropolitan areas. Without guidance from air traffic 
controllers, pilots are solely responsible for locating and avoiding 
other aircraft. In the past, a lack of control from towers has often 
been a major contributing factor in air-to-air collisions, even over 
residential areas, with damage to ground structures and threat to human 
lives.
  The Congress should not penalize airports for taking positive steps 
to increase safety. These airports built towers to make their operators 
more efficient and to avoid the dangers associated with congested 
airspace.
  Contrary to what has been reported here today, reimbursement of AIP 
funds for contract towers will not take money away from needed security 
improvements at airports. In fact, this bill will allow airports to 
prioritize their safety and security improvements and fund the most 
significant needs.
  Funds for reimbursement would come only from entitlement funds, not 
discretionary spending. Under this bill, airports may not apply for 
discretionary funds to build, equip or reimburse themselves for 
contract control towers.
  In the end we must let local airports, not bureaucrats in Washington, 
decide

[[Page H3742]]

how to best utilize the limited entitlement funds from the Airport 
Improvement Program. I am confident the Administrator at Concord 
Regional Airport will fund wisely the safety and security needs and 
concerns of that airport and the flying public.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, there was a speaker up here not too long 
ago who said something to the effect if we are not going to do this or 
not going to do that, if we are going to pass the Oberstar amendment, 
maybe we should not pass any bill at all. Well, probably the wisest 
thing in regard to this particular situation would have been to wait 
until next year when we reauthorize the Aviation Trust Fund. Then we 
could have dealt with many, many of the concerns that have been raised 
here on the floor not only by our side, but also by the other side.
  But getting back to the Oberstar amendment, first of all, we have a 
signed contract, a legal document, saying that we are going to a build 
a tower if you will staff it for us. No one was blindsided. These small 
airports agreed to that, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They had to sign a 
contract to that effect. They did so. They moved ahead, built a tower, 
and the Federal Government has been staffing it with contract 
controllers.
  Support the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we are winding up the general debate on this 
bill, and it is a good bill. It is a good bill in its present form, and 
the present form allows for fairness.
  We have heard some things said by the other side in opposition to the 
current form of this legislation, and most of it deals with the 
question of reimbursement.
  First of all, one must understand that there are some people in 
Congress who think that Washington knows best, that Washington must 
dictate exactly what every local government, every local entity, should 
do.
  Now, we are talking about funds here that these communities and 
airports would be entitled to, and we set certain parameters. We have 
set certain parameters in the past as to what projects would be 
eligible. Towers were not eligible.
  We are today, with the passage of this legislation, changing those 
rules. We told them in the past, you build a tower, and we will man the 
tower. At that time you could not use AIP funds for construction of 
those towers. We are changing that rule now. No, I do not want to 
participate in ``gotcha'' legislation. This is not fair. It is just a 
question of fairness.
  There are 22 airports that could benefit from the reimbursement 
provision. There are 48 airports that will benefit by us changing the 
rule and allowing AIP funds to be used for construction of towers. We 
today are changing the rule.
  This question about $30 million that is going to be somehow wasted or 
given away unfairly, blah, blah, blah, they are going to get that money 
anyway. They are entitled to that money. The question is, what can they 
use it on? If they have already made the safety improvement, why should 
we penalize them? It is not fair.
  It was said by the other side that someone is going to get a 
windfall. No one is getting a windfall. They are going to get those 
funds anyway. It is an entitlement. But Washington does not always know 
best.
  You heard them say they signed a contract with their eyes wide open. 
Yes, they signed the agreement, but that was the terms of how you could 
use the money then, and we are changing the rules now as to how you can 
use the money.
  So is it fair to shaft 22 who have taken the initiative and acted? 
They can decide how they want to spend that money in the future. If 
they want to spend it on a safety improvement they made in the past, 
which we are allowing these 48 others to benefit by, why not?
  Come on. As we heard the other side say, this is a matter of 
principle. Yes, it is a matter of principle. It is a matter of 
Washington knowing best, Washington dictating to these local 
governments. And we heard the pleas. We heard the pleas from the small 
communities. We heard the pleas from the gentleman from Illinois and 
the tragedy that occurred and the steps that were taken by his 
communities. We heard the pleas from the gentleman from Arkansas. We 
heard the pleas from the gentleman from Montana with the fire 
situation, the need for air traffic control.
  Why should these people be penalized in a ``gotcha'' approach? It is 
not fair. This is a question of fairness. Pass the legislation as it is 
currently formulated, and let us vote down, when we get to it, the 
Oberstar amendment, which is, in fact, a matter of principle.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1979, the ``Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement 
Act.''
  Supporting this legislation should be intuitive to anyone who cares 
the slightest bit about air safety. General aviation makes up an ever-
growing percentage of all flight travel, and it relies heavily on small 
airports. It is vital these smaller airports are safe and useable, in 
order for them to help relieve the heavy workload of the larger 
airports, including Hartsfield International in Atlanta. It is 
imperative as much of the general aviation as possible be able to use 
alternate airports.
  In order to ensure these smaller airports are safe and operable, they 
depend on Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. The intent of the 
AIP grants is to assist small airports with safety-related projects 
that support aircraft operations, such as runways and taxiways. As what 
can only be described as an oversight, AIP funds are currently 
prohibited from being used to build control towers. Obviously, a 
control tower is equipment that is necessary to ensure safe operating 
conditions.
  This legislation merely allows these small airports to utilize the 
AIP money already appropriated, to also construct control towers. It 
does not cost anything more to the taxpayers, and mandates nothing to 
the airports. It simply gives them more flexibility to use the money as 
they see fit. This should be anything but controversial.
  However, apparently some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle seem to have problems with this bill, apparently concluding that 
although airports should be able to use AIP funding to construct new 
towers, they want to prevent airports which have recently constructed 
or modified a control tower for safety reasons, from utilizing these 
funds retroactively via reimbursement.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the isle, if these towers 
are necessary safety measures now, were they not necessary a month ago? 
A year ago? Gwinnett County, GA, believed it necessary to update its 
control tower at Briscoe Field recently. Opponents of this provision 
today would argue Gwinnett County should not be reimbursed for its 
expenditure. Apparently, they feel having operational control towers 
was not a safety concern before today, but suddenly and magically now 
it is. The work was done at Briscoe Field because it was vital to the 
safety interests of air-traffic in North Georgia. Briscoe, and the 
other twenty-five airports across the country which have done likewise, 
should be able to use AIP money for their tower projects.
  I urge you to vote ``no'' on any amendment eliminating the 
reimbursement provision of this bill and to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1979.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Small 
Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement Act. Safety and 
Security, we hear these words a lot now--and we should, we are fighting 
a war and working to protect the home front. This is a fact that 
effects all legislation every day. In fact, every appropriations bill 
we debate this year will be focused on winning the war and providing 
resources to those defending America. That means some difficult 
decisions for us in Congress. This bill, however, is not a difficult 
decision, it's actually quite simple. If common sense prevails and we 
enact H.R. 1979, we will provide improved flexibility to those airports 
that receive Airport Improvement Program funds (AIP).
  I'm one who believes in local control and flexibility. Every time 
Congress has embraced that concept we have seen a success story. In 
this case, H.R. 1979 says that in addition to other AIP-approved 
projects, AIP funds can now be used for a control tower. It seems 
pretty simple to me, we're giving the airports AIP money based on a 
formula anyway, so why not let them use the money in the manner that 
best serves their needs? But some have expressed concern that airports 
can't be trusted to spend their money properly. Some must believe that 
landing a plane safely isn't an important component of airport 
operation. However, I can assure all of those who oppose this bill that 
the funds will be used properly, and spent on airport safety 
priorities.

[[Page H3743]]

  Actually, the real sticking point on H.R. 1979 is the retroactive 
provision. As drafted, this bill will allow airports that have built a 
tower since 1996 to be reimbursed for those funds up to about one 
million dollars. That's seems like a lot of money to folks in Wyoming, 
but in the scope of the AIP budget, it's by no means out of line. In 
fact it recognizes that there are proactive airports that have built a 
tower to increase the safety of local aviation. This provision will 
ensure that leaders in aviation safety will not be penalized for their 
investment in airport infrastructure.
  Now some will say we can't afford this, or that it will take away 
from other priorities. I can't disagree more. AIP funds are determined 
using a formula, and we are not debating that allocation. We are simply 
considering what other uses will be allowable uses of AIP funds for 
improving the safety of an airport.
  This debate should be about local control, not Congressional control. 
It reminds me a little about the class size debate in the Education 
bill. So many people wanted to designate funds for class size 
reduction, but not allow any flexibility for those funds if a school 
already has small classes. Shouldn't those schools be allowed to build 
important facilities if they have met the class size standard? We have 
small classes in Wyoming, we also have airports that plan properly and 
that can be trusted to use their AIP funds appropriately. I encourage 
passage of the bill as drafted, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Airport Safety, 
     Security, and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF TOWERS IN AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(M) constructing an air traffic control tower or 
     acquiring and installing air traffic control, communications, 
     and related equipment at an air traffic control tower under 
     the terms specified in section 47124(b)(4).''.

     SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 47124(b)(4) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Construction of air traffic control towers.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may provide grants to a 
     sponsor of--
       ``(i) a primary airport--

       ``(I) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for the construction or 
     improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as defined by the 
     Secretary, and for the acquisition and installation of air 
     traffic control, communications, and related equipment to be 
     used in that tower;
       ``(II) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for the cost of 
     construction or improvement of a nonapproach control tower, 
     as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 1996, 
     if the sponsor complied with the requirements of sections 
     47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in constructing or improving 
     that tower; and
       ``(III) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for the cost of 
     acquiring and installing in that tower air traffic control, 
     communications, and related equipment that was acquired or 
     installed after October 1, 1996; and

       ``(ii) a public-use airport that is not a primary airport--

       ``(I) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(2) and 47114(d) for the construction or improvement 
     of a nonapproach control tower, as defined by the Secretary, 
     and for the acquisition and installation of air traffic 
     control, communications, and related equipment to be used in 
     that tower;
       ``(II) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(2) and 47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement for the cost 
     of construction or improvement of a nonapproach control 
     tower, as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 
     1996, if the sponsor complied with the requirements of 
     sections 47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in constructing or 
     improving that tower; and
       ``(III) from amounts made available under sections 
     47114(c)(2) and 47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement for the cost 
     of acquiring and installing in that tower air traffic 
     control, communications, and related equipment that was 
     acquired or installed after October 1, 1996.

       ``(B) Eligibility.--An airport sponsor shall be eligible 
     for a grant under this paragraph only if--
       ``(i)(I) the sponsor is a participant in the Federal 
     Aviation Administration contract tower program established 
     under subsection (a) and continued under paragraph (1) or the 
     pilot program established under paragraph (3); or
       ``(II) construction of a nonapproach control tower would 
     qualify the sponsor to be eligible to participate in such 
     program;
       ``(ii) the sponsor certifies that it will pay not less than 
     10 percent of the cost of the activities for which the 
     sponsor is receiving assistance under this paragraph;
       ``(iii) the Secretary affirmatively accepts the proposed 
     contract tower into a contract tower program under this 
     section and certifies that the Secretary will seek future 
     appropriations to pay the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     cost of the contract to operate the tower to be constructed 
     under this paragraph;
       ``(iv) the sponsor certifies that it will pay its share of 
     the cost of the contract to operate the tower to be 
     constructed under this paragraph; and
       ``(v) in the case of a tower to be constructed under this 
     paragraph from amounts made available under section 
     47114(d)(2) or 47114(d)(3)(B), the Secretary certifies that--

       ``(I) the Federal Aviation Administration has consulted the 
     State within the borders of which the tower is to be 
     constructed and the State supports the construction of the 
     tower as part of its State airport capital plan; and
       ``(II) the selection of the tower for funding is based on 
     objective criteria, giving no weight to any congressional 
     committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference 
     committee, or statutory designation.

       ``(C) Limitation on federal share.--The Federal share of 
     the cost of construction of a nonapproach control tower under 
     this paragraph may not exceed $1,100,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 47124(b) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``Level I air traffic 
     control towers, as defined by the Secretary,'' and inserting 
     ``nonapproach control towers, as defined by the Secretary,''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(E) by striking ``Subject to paragraph 
     (4)(D), of'' and inserting ``Of''.
       (c) Savings Clause.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by 
     this section, the 2 towers for which assistance is being 
     provided on the day before the date of enactment of this Act 
     under section 47124(b)(4) of title 49, United States Code, as 
     in effect on such day, may continue to be provided such 
     assistance under the terms of such section.

     SEC. 4. NONAPPROACH CONTROL TOWERS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may enter into a lease agreement or contract 
     agreement with a private entity to provide for construction 
     and operation of a nonapproach control tower as defined by 
     the Secretary of Transportation.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--An agreement entered into under 
     this section--
       (1) shall be negotiated under such procedures as the 
     Administrator considers necessary to ensure the integrity of 
     the selection process, the safety of air travel, and to 
     protect the interests of the United States;
       (2) may provide a lease option to the United States, to be 
     exercised at the discretion of the Administrator, to occupy 
     any general-purpose space in a facility covered by the 
     agreement;
       (3) shall not require, unless specifically determined 
     otherwise by the Administrator, Federal ownership of a 
     facility covered under the agreement after the expiration of 
     the agreement;
       (4) shall describe the consideration, duties, and 
     responsibilities for which the United States and the private 
     entity are responsible;
       (5) shall provide that the United Sates will not be liable 
     for any action, debt, or liability of any entity created by 
     the agreement;
       (6) shall provide that the private entity may not execute 
     any instrument or document creating or evidencing any 
     indebtedness with respect to a facility covered by the 
     agreement unless such instrument or document specifically 
     disclaims any liability of the United States under the 
     instrument or document; and
       (7) shall include such other terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 3, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 13 
     on page 5 and insert the following:

       ``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may provide grants to a 
     sponsor of--
       ``(i) a primary airport from amounts made available under 
     sections 47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2); and
       ``(ii) a public-use airport that is not a primary airport 
     from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(2) and 
     47114(d),

     for the construction or improvement of a nonapproach control 
     tower, as defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 
     and installation of air traffic control, communications, and 
     related equipment to be used in that tower.


[[Page H3744]]


  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be an accorded 
an additional 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I listened again with great attention to 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who made a very 
compassionate, or passionate, argument, compassionate for those 20 
airports who are going to be windfall beneficiaries.
  This idea that airports that built the contract towers are rewarded 
for thinking ahead by this amendment is just not right.
  I heard another appeal to common sense, but is it common sense to 
vitiate common law? Common law says you made an agreement, which is a 
contract. Live by it. That is all we are saying.
  They built the tower. They received an enormous benefit from the FAA 
to the tune of an average $350,000 a year in air traffic control 
services provided by the FAA at that tower. Other airports did not take 
a flying leap and build a tower and then hope that someday in the 
future, some future Congress would come back and benefit them.
  In addition, while these towers may have been indeed built for safety 
purposes, they were all built with the very clear purpose of economic 
benefits for the communities. They need not be double-imbursed by 
having the ability to be compensated for something they did at a time 
when they knew they would not be compensated for it.
  These are scarce dollars, AIP dollars, very limited amounts of money. 
They have to be very carefully managed. We criticize the FAA when they 
badly manage those dollars, and we ought not to engage in further 
mismanagement on this House floor by allowing the reach-back provision 
to cover the cost of towers previously built under terms and conditions 
that, in many cases, do not comply with the benefit-cost analysis 
required by FAA rules of contract towers.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) has already said the 26 
airports to be covered by this provision have already requested funds 
totaling in excess of $252 million in Federal funding for future AIP-
eligible projects under the NIPIAS. They have requested $6.3 million 
for security projects, access control, fencing, vehicles, infrared 
cameras, closed circuit monitors, blast analyses, berm construction, 
safety enhancements for lighting, deicing, snow removal and weather 
reporting, and capacity projects such as runway extensions, taxiways, 
apron extensions, cargo and general aviation taxiways.

                              {time}  1345

  These airports get $150,000 a year under the AIR-21 legislation we 
passed just 2 years ago, and I supported initiating the idea of special 
funding for smaller airports in our era of hub-and-spoke aviation 
systems. In the contract to our program, and remember, that was started 
in the aftermath of the air traffic controller strike in 1981 when 
there was a need to increase safety in the system, the contract tower 
program provides for air traffic control services only. Tower 
construction is outside the scope of the program for those who 
participate who did not have approval from the FAA. Once they are 
accepted into the contract tower program, those airports signed a 
contract airport traffic control tower operating agreement that says 
specifically, ``In consideration of air traffic control service being 
provided to the airport sponsored by the government, the airport 
sponsor agrees to the following terms and conditions at no cost to the 
government. The airport sponsor shall provide an air traffic control 
tower structure meeting all applicable State and local standards.''
  How can it be more clear than that? They signed an agreement, eyes 
wide open, knowing full well that they had to meet this cost. Now they 
are going to come back and say, oh, we did not mean that. We throw 
contract law right out the window. We throw agreements right out the 
window.
  I am offended by this idea that we ought to scatter these dollars 
around and just make whole those airports who signed an agreement, knew 
what they were getting into, who received significant benefits since 
they built those towers. Mr. Chairman, $350,000 a year on average for 
air traffic control services, and now we want to double benefit them.
  Furthermore, the bill before us does not require the airport to use 
the reimbursement fund to fund AIP-eligible projects; it would be 
somewhat tolerable if we were limited in that respect, but only 
requires the airport to show that it complied with Davis-Bacon, Small 
Business and Veterans Preference, but not the other statutory 
requirements, the National Environmental Policy Act, for example. Well, 
I just do not understand how it can be considered to be a burden and a 
penalty to ask an airport to live up to the terms of an agreement it 
entered into voluntarily, an agreement through which it got the Federal 
funding for the cost of operating the tower.
  If this bill should pass with this provision in it, I will be 
watching very carefully in the future to see how many other 
circumstances there will be, reach-back provisions, and let us 
exonerate this interest from that requirement. I will be very 
interested to see if the gentleman from Mississippi is going to be the 
first one to step up to the plate and offer additional funding in the 
transportation appropriations bill to cover additional costs that are 
going to be incurred by these small airports in the future. They are 
going to need additional money. They are going to soak up this $30 
million to pay for something they already built; and then they are 
going to come back and say, but we are out-of-pocket and we need money 
for security and safety and capacity enhancements.
  Where is that money going to come from? Well, I hope it does not come 
out of the AIP program or the F&E account or the operational account or 
any other accounts, because they are all limited; and that is the 
point. We do not have infinite dollars in the aviation trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat. These entitlement dollars come from the 
aviation trust fund contributed by all users. They are not coming from 
a passenger facility charge that the airport has imposed. If they 
wanted to impose a passenger facility charge, that is their dollars; 
they can use it as they see fit. I supported it. I initiated that 
legislation in 1990. This is different. These are different funds.
  There are substantial economic benefits that flow to a city from an 
airport with a control tower. Safety is one of them, but significant 
economic benefits. We are just coming here and saying, although you did 
not qualify, although you did not meet the eligibility requirements, we 
are still going to reimburse you for having gone ahead and, with your 
eyes wide open, signed an agreement that you would build this tower at 
your expense for the FAA to operate that tower.
  Now, there could be an argument, although I have not heard it yet 
from our chairman, that in the 1996 legislation we provided funding for 
reimbursement of non-AIP-eligible projects. However, in the 1996 bill, 
that was prospective, not retroactive. That is the difference, and that 
is the consistency with Federal law that I was expecting and arguing 
for in this legislation. We do not have that consistency. And the 
chairman is going to have a hard time, Mr. Chairman, reconciling this 
action with any future FAA legislation that wants to deviate from 
historic precedent and practice.
  The basic underlying bill is prospective, and that is appropriate. 
What is not appropriate is to compensate airports for something that 
they agreed to build, for costs they agreed to incur, and in return for 
which they have received significant benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be passed. We should delete this 
provision of the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I must speak in opposition to the amendment 
offered

[[Page H3745]]

by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). We have 
worked long and hard on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation to achieve a bipartisan 
agreement on this legislation. I think for the most part we have 
succeeded. However, on this reimbursement issue, we just do not see eye 
to eye.
  I disagree with the underlying premise of the amendment proposed here 
that for some reason the reimbursement for control tower construction 
is bad. Our current law allows reimbursement for airport terminal 
construction. Control towers are certainly at least as important as the 
terminal buildings. Control towers provide, I believe, one of the most 
important safety benefits. Airports that have taken the initiative to 
build them on their own should, in fact, be rewarded. We changed the 
law in 1996 to be prospective. We made some changes at that point. I am 
asking that we change the law now as we changed the law on the payment 
eligibility to be retrospective to the 1996 law.
  The airports that would be adversely affected by this amendment are 
relatively small airports. Spending approximately $1 million to build 
and equip a control tower is a significant burden on them.
  Although they may not have had a legal right to reimbursement at the 
time they built the towers, and that was the rule at that point, and we 
are changing the rules and the law at this point, many were hopeful 
that when Congress saw fit to make tower construction eligible for 
these grants, and, again, they have eligibility to use this entitlement 
money however they wish, that in fact the Congress would help those who 
have taken the initiative to act.
  I have letters from at least five airports that say that they were 
hoping for such a reimbursement at the time that they built their 
towers; and, in fact, we know that we do them an injustice if we pass 
this Oberstar amendment.
  It is also important to note that the airports can only use AIP 
entitlements for reimbursement.
  Now, it does not say that they shall be reimbursed. There is no 
language in here that says they shall be reimbursed or they shall take 
their $30 million, which may be the amount that that group is entitled 
to over future years. It is ``may,'' that they ``may.'' It gives them 
the option. We have opened the option of having towers as being 
eligible, construction being eligible for payment. All this is saying 
is that they may use some of the money that they are getting anyway in 
a discretionary fashion. It does not say that they shall. So we have a 
bogus argument that $30 million is going to somehow be sucked out of 
this fund.
  This is money that the airport has a right to as a matter of law and 
entitlement. How they use that money should be a part of local control 
and local decision. Again, that is a fundamental difference. This is a 
debate about principle. A principle that Washington knows best, one-
size-fits-all, we tell you. Now, we may change the rules, but we got 
you, because you are not going to be eligible, and we shaft some 20 to 
22 airports who have already taken the initiative to build their 
towers.
  Since this is money that the airport would get in any event, allowing 
them to use it for reimbursement does not increase the Federal deficit 
or Federal commitment, financial commitment in any way, nor does it 
take away from capacity or safety-enhancing projects at any other 
airports, or even at that airport. They will make the decision on what 
improvements they want to make in what order, and we give them the 
ability, but they may. Again an option, we give them an option.
  Security here and the misuse of these funds by local officials is 
used purely as a red herring in this debate. The Congress has not 
decided how we are going to fund transportation safety improvements. 
Right now there is a supplemental that has not been decided on how we 
are going to fund security improvements, so I do not buy that argument.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Oberstar amendment, and I ask for its 
defeat.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my support for the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. Chairman, today we are considering what is essentially a good 
bill, with the exception of one bad provision. Tucked into this bill is 
a provision that takes approximately $30 million of funding currently 
available to enhance airport security and uses these funds to reimburse 
airports for air traffic control towers previously built. These towers 
were constructed at some of the smallest airports in the Nation under 
an express agreement that the Federal Government would pay the cost of 
staffing the tower, but not the construction costs. The Oberstar 
amendment would eliminate the provision for retroactive reimbursement 
and keep the funds available for new airport projects to enhance safety 
and security.
  I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to H.R. 1979 insofar 
as it authorizes the use of Federal funds to support the building of 
new towers. I had hoped that my objections to the retroactive 
reimbursement provisions could have been resolved in the subcommittee 
or full committee markup of this legislation. Unfortunately, they were 
not, and we find ourselves in the rare situation of amending a bill 
from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the floor.
  What I oppose, Mr. Chairman, is the use of airport capital funds to 
pay for towers already built. Under the bill, an airport is only 
required to demonstrate that it has complied with Davis-Bacon, Small 
Business, and Veteran Preference requirements, but not the rest of the 
statutory and administrative requirements governing airport improvement 
program projects. This means that contract towers constructed prior to 
the enactment of this bill would be reimbursed with AIP funds, but 
subject to different and lower standards than all other AIP projects, 
including new contract towers built pursuant to the reported bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Perhaps the most important reason to oppose the retroactive 
reimbursement provision is that it sets a bad precedent as we head 
toward Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization next year.
  In reauthorization, we will consider new eligibilities for the AIP 
program. By setting a precedent for retroactive reimbursement, we run 
the risk of encumbering the AIP program in future years with 
reimbursements for work that has already been completed.
  Now more than ever we need to focus on the task in front of us: 
addressing the aviation safety and security needs of the post-September 
11 world. So once again, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill with one bad 
provision in it. The Oberstar amendment will fix that. I strongly urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when I listened 
to the sponsor of the amendment talk about benefits, tremendous 
benefits, significant benefits, benefit benefits, I did not count them 
all. The only real benefit here is safety.
  These people in places like Kalispell, Montana, made the 
determination that they wanted to do something about the organized 
mayhem that was created by the Forest Service and their forest fire 
adding, doubling, the number of airplanes, tankers, helicopters, in the 
air per day for months on end.
  I do not know how many pilots are on the floor today, but I can tell 
the Members that pilots sometimes need help. They certainly need help 
when the number of traffic count in one day doubles because of a forest 
fire. Now, couple that with smoke and mountains and activity, and when 
I talk about organized mayhem, sometimes the people in the tower are 
the only safety valve for those people.
  So what is the benefit here? The benefit is to save lives. Is that 
not what this Congress is all about? Is this, the bill of the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) that we are talking about, creating the 
safety? No. The safety is created by the individuals in the communities 
that make a determination that they have a need.
  Now, the logic is lost on me that somehow the airports that did not

[[Page H3746]]

build their towers did not need it or are somehow at a loss for this. 
No, they made the determination that for safety reasons they did not 
need to have a tower, but our airport did make that determination. So 
rather than punish our communities for doing that, we ought to reward 
them.
  The $30 million figure, again, I will give an example of why that is 
not true. I am the only Congressman in this body who has two of those 
airports in their district, Bozeman, Montana, and Kalispell, Montana. 
Kalispell, Montana, will ask for a reimbursement from their account. It 
is their money into the future. They have made that a top priority. 
Bozeman, Montana, will not. They have announced that they have made the 
prioritization, and they have the ability under their taxpayer funding 
in their local community to withstand that cost, and they will do that. 
They will not ask for a reimbursement. So it is not $30 million, it 
must be something less, because Bozeman, Montana, is not coming in for 
the money.
  So I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for 
specifically pointing out the difference between ``may'' and ``shall,'' 
because in our particular case, it is ``may.''
  So I ask the Members, my friends in the legislative body, to please 
oppose this amendment. It does not make sense. It is one-size-fits-all, 
and that is the wrongheadedness that so often occurs in the United 
States Congress.
  We need the flexibility. We need to understand it is not about money, 
it is about safety and saving lives. Let us reward the airports for 
having done the right thing. I hope Members will kill this amendment 
and support the Wicker bill.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, a Republican mentioned earlier that perhaps these 
issues should have been dealt with in the reauthorization of the 
Aviation Trust Fund next year. Those probably were some of the wisest 
words that we have had on the floor here today. We should not be 
dealing with these aviation issues in such a piecemeal fashion.
  Everybody agrees that we have a solemn, sacred contract signed by the 
local airport authority and the FAA. Now we have the Federal 
Government, the big, bad Federal Government, stepping in and breaking 
that contract between the FAA and the local airport authority.
  It has been mentioned that safety will be compromised unless the 
Oberstar amendment is defeated. These towers have already been built 
for safety purposes. This amendment has nothing to do in reality with 
the safety at those particular airports, because those airports have 
already got their towers up. They have already get their air traffic 
controllers in place.
  I want to get back to the point, the fact that there is a $250 
million request for future safety and security needs at these airports. 
I asked the question, where is that money going to come from to finance 
those safety and security needs when, because of the retroactivity in 
this bill, the vast majority, if not all, of these airports are going 
to be utilizing their $150,000 a year to pay for these towers that have 
already been built, that they knew were not going to be reimbursed for?
  It seems to me if we are going to be fair to the entire aviation 
system that we have in place in this Nation, and we are going to be 
fair to all these small airports, we have to support the Oberstar 
amendment.
  This bill, even though it should have been put off until the Aviation 
Trust Fund next year, would not be a controversial bill, other than the 
fact that we are doing something that is almost unprecedented; that is, 
the retroactivity of this bill.
  So I say to Members, if they want to be fair to everybody, support 
the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my fellow Members to reward 
and encourage airports to do the right thing for the safety of the 
traveling public by voting against this amendment offered by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. Chairman, much of the country is not served by mega-airports like 
LaGuardia or O'Hare. Most of it is served by smaller, community-based 
airports. Under provisions of the Small Airport Safety, Security, and 
Air Service Improvement Act of 2002, which was marked up and favorably 
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with my 
support this last April, small airports participating in the FAA's 
contract tower program, like the Anoka Airport in my home State of 
Minnesota, could seek reimbursement for the cost of contracting and 
constructing air traffic control towers.
  Smaller airports, like the Anoka Airport, which is a critical part of 
the Minnesota commercial air system, often act as links for smaller 
communities to larger cities. Often these airports serve as a vital 
role for reliever airports, taking pressure off the often jam-packed 
big-city airports.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered because it would 
penalize these airports for having the foresight to build an FAA 
contract tower. This could cost taxpayers in the communities like Anoka 
if this was passed. These airports took it upon themselves to act to 
safeguard the flying public by building a tower. They should be 
rewarded and not punished for being proactive. We should encourage and 
reward airports for proactively acting on safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and 
to support and encourage proactive actions for safer air travel, and 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 
his advocacy for Anoka County Airport. Anoka County used to be in the 
Eighth Congressional District some 20 years ago. Even after it was 
taken out of my district, I worked closely with the county and the 
airport authority to secure the funds to operate the air traffic 
control tower, and made it clear that at the time they did not qualify 
for funds.
  They were willing to build a tower anyway. They knew, they knew that 
they wanted this tower for a variety of reasons. But it is not right to 
come back and say, well, now you can be reimbursed. I was deeply 
involved in that whole situation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
great efforts for transportation throughout Minnesota, but if they had 
built that tower in the future, they would be eligible for 
reimbursement. I do not want to be in a position of penalizing somebody 
for acting in a proactive manner and moving forward, ahead without 
that.
  I think that if we had the door artificially shut, and now we are 
opening it for reimbursement, it is not fair to say that because they 
were proactive, that they are not being reimbursed. It is on that 
ground that I encourage Members to not support the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Oberstar amendment to HR 1979. Since the tragic event of 9/11, we have 
all focused on the issues of making this country a safer place--
especially in regards to our airways. The Small Airport Safety, 
Security and Air Service Improvement Act is one of many pieces of 
legislation that will help to make the dream of safe-skies a reality.
  However, one provision of the resolution is actually a step in the 
wrong direction. Although it makes good sense to allow small airports 
to use AIP funds to fill a funding gap and fund future construction of 
control towers, making such use of funds retroactive does not make 
sense. AIP money that has previously been allocated to small airports 
could be used to upgrade safety and security. This is now our number-
one priority. Reimbursing airports for past construction--that they 
have already done, that they had already budgeted for, that they could 
already afford--would simply divert 30 million dollars away from new 
priorities.
  Furthermore, all federally funded construction projects are subject 
to standard statutory and administrative requirements as mandated by 
Congress. Past projects presumably were able to bypass the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the National Environmental Policy

[[Page H3747]]

Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, to name just a few. 
Allowing reimbursement of airports for tower-construction costs would 
provide an inappropriate double-windfall.
  Therefore, I support the Amendment from the gentleman from 
Minnesota--to ensure, in the interest of fairness, that all federally 
funded control towers are subject to the same standards and 
regulations. More importantly, I support the Oberstar amendment to keep 
funding concentrated on the efforts of making our skies safer and more 
secure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. USE OF APPORTIONMENTS TO PAY NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF 
                   OPERATION COSTS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
     study of the feasibility, costs, and benefits of allowing the 
     sponsor of an airport to use not to exceed 10 percent of 
     amounts apportioned to the sponsor under section 47114 to pay 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of operation of an air 
     traffic control tower under section 47124(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment on 
this bill. I had originally planned to have an amendment introduced 
that would have given relief and assistance to small airports to use 
part of their funds, a limitation on their funds that they get under 
the Airport Improvement Act, for operations of their control towers. 
Recognizing that control towers are one of the best ways to improve 
safety in airports, especially in this era of heightened emergency 
consciousness, I want to make sure that small airports have the same 
ability to provide security and information and assistance and 
protection and also at a cost-effective number as big airports.
  Every airport that provides scheduled passenger service should have 
the ability to operate a control tower, but in lieu of that amendment, 
which I understand, as some questions that have been raised by both 
staff and Members, and I respect that, and I respect the work that this 
committee has done and is doing and will be doing on this very 
important issue, we have proposed the amendment before the House today 
which will allow the Department of Transportation an opportunity to 
study the issue to determine the extent and the depth and the concern 
that exists out in the real world of small airports having to deal with 
the costs of operations of towers.
  We all know that it needs to be done. Each airport needs to have a 
tower to make sure that it is providing necessary service to the public 
and safety to the public. So I think it will do all of us who consider 
this issue, both the Department of Transportation and others as well as 
the committees of jurisdiction, to take a look at what the findings 
will be in the next year of who is affected by this kind of disparity, 
if you will, high costs for small airports, large airports getting cost 
assistance.
  So what this amendment does is say let us take a look at this. If we 
at some point provide more assistance to small airports, it will give 
those airports a chance to have the flexibility to use the airport 
improvement funds for paying their share of operating costs. That is 
not what this amendment does. It is just that we are going to take a 
look at it and see what the extent of the problem is. Recognizing that 
I think we do respect the freedom of choice and individuality and needs 
of each airport, each airport authority, to maintain its tower 
operations, it is critically important that our airports be able to do 
this.
  One airport in my district, the Walla Walla Airport, pays $41,000, 
almost $42,000, to pay for the contract to operate the tower. They get 
about a million dollars annually in AIP funds, but they cannot use any 
of that for operations of the tower. So they pay about 16 percent now. 
Other airports pay a little different figure.
  There is a complicated formula, Mr. Chairman, that determines what 
the allocation is, what the obligation is for each airport, and it is 
complex, and it is not uniform necessarily as I understand it. So we 
want to be sure that in the process of providing security and 
assistance to our airports, that we help the small guys, the little 
airports like Walla Walla and other similarly situated all across this 
country so that we are able to provide the security and the operational 
ability necessary for efficiency and to make sure that the traveling 
public is protected.
  So with that, it is my understanding that both sides have taken a 
look at this, that there is no objection to the language of our 
amendment.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. It is a bit 
controversial in that it does establish a new precedent for use of 
these funds for operations. We are willing to consider the study 
provision and reporting back. Small airports are under the gun to raise 
funds to not only build towers, and this legislation allows them to use 
part of their AIP money for that purpose, but also to look at the 
question of using some of those funds again in an unprecedented manner 
to support operations.
  So we have no objection. I believe, however, we are asking the vote 
be called on this particular amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


               Sequential Votes in Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  An amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar and an amendment offered by Mr. 
Nethercutt.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 223, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--202

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank

[[Page H3748]]


     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Coble
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Collins
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Miller, George
     Pickering
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1440

  Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. TAUZIN, and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241. I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on the amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote on the Nethercutt 
amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 12, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen

[[Page H3749]]


     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--12

     Allen
     Carson (OK)
     Costello
     Davis (FL)
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Roemer
     Stark

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hilliard
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Miller, George
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1450

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dan 
Miller of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide 
assistance for the construction of certain air traffic control towers, 
pursuant to House Resolution 447, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 284, 
nays 143, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               YEAS--284

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--143

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hilliard
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Roukema
     Rush
     Souder
     Traficant

                              {time}  1515

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________