[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4361-H4365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AIRPORT STREAMLINING APPROVAL PROCESS ACT OF 2002
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4481) to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to airport
project streamlining, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4481
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 ``Airport Streamlining
Approval Process Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) airports play a major role in interstate and foreign
commerce;
(2) congestion and delays at our Nation's major airports
have a significant negative impact on our Nation's economy;
(3) airport capacity enhancement projects at congested
airports are a national priority and should be constructed on
an expedited basis;
(4) airport capacity enhancement projects must include an
environmental review process that provides local citizenry an
opportunity for consideration of and appropriate action to
address environmental concerns; and
(5) the Federal Aviation Administration, airport
authorities, communities, and other Federal, State, and local
government agencies must work together to develop a plan, set
and honor milestones and deadlines, and work to protect the
environment while sustaining the economic vitality that will
result from the continued growth of aviation.
SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF NEW RUNWAYS.
Section 40104 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Airport Capacity Enhancement Projects at Congested
Airports.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator
shall take action to encourage the construction of airport
capacity enhancement projects at congested airports as those
terms are defined in section 47179.''.
SEC. 4. AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 47153 the
following:
``SUBCHAPTER III--AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING
``Sec. 47171. DOT as lead agency
``(a) Airport Project Review Process.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall develop and implement a coordinated
review process for airport capacity enhancement projects at
congested airports.
``(b) Coordinated Reviews.--The coordinated review process
under this section shall provide that all environmental
reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals
that must be issued or made by a Federal agency or airport
sponsor for an airport capacity enhancement project at a
congested airport will be conducted concurrently, to the
maximum extent practicable, and completed within a time
period established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the
agencies identified under subsection (c) with respect to the
project.
``(c) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With
respect to each airport capacity enhancement project at a
congested airport, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as
practicable, all Federal and State agencies that may have
jurisdiction over environmental-related matters that may be
affected by the project or may be required by law to conduct
an environmental-related review or analysis of the project or
determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit,
license, or approval for the project.
``(d) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is
being implemented under this section by the Secretary with
respect to a project at an airport within the boundaries of a
State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to
participate in such process and provide that all State
agencies that have jurisdiction over environmental-related
matters that may be affected by the project or may be
required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or
analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an
environmental-related permit, license, or approval for the
project, be subject to the process.
``(e) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review
process developed under this section may be incorporated into
a memorandum of understanding for a project between the
Secretary and the heads of other Federal and State agencies
identified under subsection (c) with respect to the project
and the airport sponsor.
``(f) Effect of Failure To Meet Deadline.--
``(1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary
determines that a Federal agency, State agency, or airport
sponsor that is participating in a coordinated review process
under this section with respect to a project has not met a
deadline established under subsection (b) for the project,
the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of
such determination, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency or sponsor
involved about the failure to meet the deadline.
``(2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after date of
receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the agency or
sponsor involved shall submit a report to the Secretary, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Council on
Environmental Quality explaining why the agency or sponsor
did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take
to complete or issue the required review, analysis, opinion,
license, or approval.
``(g) Purpose and Need.--For any environmental review,
analysis, opinion, permit, license, or approval that must be
issued or made by a Federal or State agency that is
participating in a coordinated review process under this
section with respect to an airport capacity enhancement
project at a congested airport and that requires an analysis
of purpose and need for the project, the agency,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall be bound by
the project purpose and need as defined by the Secretary.
``(h) Alternatives Analysis.--The Secretary shall determine
the reasonable alternatives to an airport capacity
enhancement project at a congested airport. Any other Federal
or State agency that is participating in a coordinated review
process under this section with respect to the project shall
consider only those alternatives to the project that the
Secretary has determined are reasonable.
``(i) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In
applying subsections (g) and (h), the Secretary shall solicit
and consider comments from interested persons and
governmental entities.
``Sec. 47172. Categorical exclusions
``Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall develop
and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the
requirement that an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement
[[Page H4362]]
be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for projects at airports.
``Sec. 47173. Access restrictions to ease construction
``At the request of an airport sponsor for a congested
airport, the Secretary of Transportation may approve a
restriction on use of a runway to be constructed at the
airport to minimize potentially significant adverse noise
impacts from the runway only if the Secretary determines that
imposition of the restriction--
``(1) is necessary to mitigate those impacts and expedite
construction of the runway;
``(2) is the most appropriate and a cost-effective measure
to mitigate those impacts, taking into consideration any
environmental tradeoffs associated with the restriction; and
``(3) would not adversely affect service to small
communities, adversely affect safety or efficiency of the
national airspace system, unjustly discriminate against any
class of user of the airport, or impose an undue burden on
interstate or foreign commerce.
``Sec. 47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 47107(b),
section 47133, or any other provision of this title, the
Secretary of Transportation may allow an airport sponsor
carrying out an airport capacity enhancement project at a
congested airport to make payments, out of revenues generated
at the airport (including local taxes on aviation fuel), for
measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project
if the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the mitigation measures are included as part of, or
are consistent with, the preferred alternative for the
project in the documentation prepared pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.);
``(2) the use of such revenues will provide a significant
incentive for, or remove an impediment to, approval of the
project by a State or local government; and
``(3) the cost of the mitigation measures is reasonable in
relation to the mitigation that will be achieved.
``(b) Mitigation of Aircraft Noise.--Mitigation measures
described in subsection (a) may include the insulation of
residential buildings and buildings used primarily for
educational or medical purposes to mitigate the effects of
aircraft noise and the improvement of such buildings as
required for the insulation of the buildings under local
building codes.
``Sec. 47175. Airport funding of FAA staff
``(a) Acceptance of Sponsor-Provided Funds.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration may accept funds from
an airport sponsor, including funds provided to the sponsor
under section 47114(c), to hire additional staff or obtain
the services of consultants in order to facilitate the timely
processing, review, and completion of environmental
activities associated with an airport development project.
``(b) Administrative Provision.--Instead of payment from an
airport sponsor from funds apportioned to the sponsor under
section 47114, the Administrator, with agreement of the
sponsor, may transfer funds that would otherwise be
apportioned to the sponsor under section 47114 to the account
used by the Administrator for activities described in
subsection (a).
``(c) Receipts Credited as Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any funds accepted
under this section, except funds transferred pursuant to
subsection (b)--
``(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the
account that finances the activities and services for which
the funds are accepted;
``(2) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the
costs of activities and services for which the funds are
accepted; and
``(3) shall remain available until expended.
``(d) Maintenance of Effort.--No funds may be accepted
pursuant to subsection (a), or transferred pursuant to
subsection (b), in any fiscal year in which the Federal
Aviation Administration does not allocate at least the amount
it expended in fiscal year 2002, excluding amounts accepted
pursuant to section 337 of the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (115 Stat.
862), for the activities described in subsection (a).
``Sec. 47176. Authorization of appropriations
``In addition to the amounts authorized to be appropriated
under section 106(k), there is authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Transportation, out of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund established under section 9502 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502), $2,100,000
for fiscal year 2003 and $4,200,000 for each fiscal year
thereafter to facilitate the timely processing, review, and
completion of environmental activities associated with
airport capacity enhancement projects at congested airports.
``Sec. 47177. Judicial review
``(a) Filing and Venue.--A person disclosing a substantial
interest in an order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation or the head of any other Federal agency under
this part or a person or agency relying on any determination
made under this part may apply for review of the order by
filing a petition for review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court
of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the
person resides or has its principal place of business. The
petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order
is issued. The court may allow the petition to be filed after
the 60th day only if there are reasonable grounds for not
filing by the 60th day.
``(b) Judicial Procedures.--When a petition is filed under
subsection (a) of this section, the clerk of the court
immediately shall send a copy of the petition to the
Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency involved.
The Secretary or the head of such other agency shall file
with the court a record of any proceeding in which the order
was issued.
``(c) Authority of Court.--When the petition is sent to the
Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency involved,
the court has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend,
modify, or set aside any part of the order and may order the
Secretary or the head of such other agency to conduct further
proceedings. After reasonable notice to the Secretary or the
head of such other agency, the court may grant interim relief
by staying the order or taking other appropriate action when
good cause for its action exists. Findings of fact by the
Secretary or the head of such other agency are conclusive if
supported by substantial evidence.
``(d) Requirement for Prior Objection.--In reviewing an
order of the Secretary or the head of any other Federal
agency under this section, the court may consider an
objection to the action of the Secretary or the head of such
other agency only if the objection was made in the proceeding
conducted by the Secretary or the head of such other agency
or if there was a reasonable ground for not making the
objection in the proceeding.
``(e) Supreme Court Review.--A decision by a court under
this section may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court under
section 1254 of title 28.
``(f) Order Defined.--In this section, the term `order'
includes a record of decision or a finding of no significant
impact.
``Sec. 47178. Definitions
``In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Airport sponsor.--The term `airport sponsor' has the
meaning given the term `sponsor' under section 47102.
``(2) Congested airport.--The term `congested airport'
means an airport that accounted for at least 1 percent of all
delayed aircraft operations in the United States in the most
recent year for which such data is available and an airport
listed in table 1 of the Federal Aviation Administration's
Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001.
``(3) Airport capacity enhancement project.--The term
`airport capacity enhancement project' means--
``(A) a project for construction or extension of a runway,
including any land acquisition, taxiway, or safety area
associated with the runway or runway extension; and
``(B) such other airport development projects as the
Secretary may designate as facilitating a reduction in air
traffic congestion and delays.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of
such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER III--AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING
``47171. DOT as lead agency.
``47172. Categorical exclusions.
``47173. Access restrictions to ease construction.
``47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation.
``47175. Airport funding of FAA staff.
``47176. Authorization of appropriations.
``47177. Judicial review.
``47178. Definitions.''.
SEC. 5. GOVERNOR'S CERTIFICATE.
Section 47106(c) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A)(ii);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``stage 2'' and
inserting ``stage 3'';
(3) by striking paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
SEC. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN AIRPORT CAPACITY PROJECTS.
Section 47504(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) to an airport operator of a congested airport (as
defined in section 47178) and a unit of local government
referred to in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) of this subsection
to carry out a project to mitigate noise in the area
surrounding the airport if the project is included as a
commitment in a record of decision of the Federal Aviation
Administration for an airport capacity enhancement project
(as defined in section 47178) even if that airport has not
met the requirements of part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.''.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act, including any amendment made by this
Act, shall preempt or interfere with--
(1) any practice of seeking public comment; and
(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority of a State agency
or an airport sponsor has with respect to carrying out an
airport capacity enhancement project.
[[Page H4363]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, air travel in the United States
has grown faster than any other mode of transportation. More and more,
our citizens rely on the speed and the convenience of flights in
aviation to improve our daily lives. Unfortunately, we, as a nation,
have failed to provide the airport capacity necessary to keep pace with
the great demand that we have seen grow over the past decades.
Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration released a report
which revealed for the first time how very far we have fallen behind in
meeting our aviation infrastructure needs. According to the report, our
Nation's 31 busiest airports are now at or above capacity for some
portion of the day.
Insufficient airport runway capacity has led to chronic and worsening
congestion. Last summer, and before the events of September 11, one out
of every four commercial flights experienced a significant delay or
cancellation. As air travelers begin to regain confidence in our
system, we have already seen the return of traffic in aviation
commercial passenger service to pre-September 11 levels.
It is not a question of when, Mr. Speaker, or even if; it is a
question of how soon gridlock will return to our busiest airports, and
we are already seeing that occur. Airports around the Nation must now
begin to address the capacity needs that we have seen in the past
immediately. We have a little bit of a break here again in regaining
our passenger service that we had pre-September 11, so it gives us an
opportunity to plan, to prepare, and to meet the aviation
infrastructure needs of the future.
Unfortunately, standing in the way of moving forward with building
our Nation's aviation infrastructure is a very cumbersome Federal
review process. That process is full of duplication, it is full of
conflicting mandates, and one that, in fact, lacks coordination, lacks
accountability, and sometimes wastes years and years of precious time
when communities and States are trying to work with the Federal
Government to build the aviation infrastructure that our economy and
our areas need so desperately.
The legislation before us today, H.R. 4481, I believe, will
significantly improve the Federal review process for critical airport
capacity projects that are under consideration at 31 of our Nation's
busiest airports. While this legislation will cut through red tape, it
will not in any way diminish existing environmental laws or in any way
limit local input or control over these critical projects.
I know some Members have expressed concern that when we streamline,
we do not want to streamline over local authority and we do not want to
streamline over environmental laws that protect the beautiful landscape
that we live in and enjoy. So those two features in this legislation
that people are concerned about do not exist. We do not harm the
environment, nor do we run over local authority.
The way this legislation is drafted, it will ensure that once a
community has reached a consensus on a critical capacity project, the
review process will not unnecessarily delay construction. This bill, in
fact, creates a coordinated review process for our major airport
capacity projects across the country. It also gives the Secretary of
Transportation the responsibility to ensure that all environmental
reviews by all government agencies will be conducted at the same time
whenever possible, and completed within the deadlines established by
the Department of Transportation.
H.R. 4481 also binds all Federal and State agencies taking part in a
review to the project's ``purpose and need'' as determined by the
Department of Transportation under this legislation. It also limits
Federal or State agency reviews to the project alternatives that the
Secretary of the Department determines are reasonable.
{time} 1230
Finally, this bill also expedites judicial reviews of Department of
Transportation determinations. It moves all claims to the U.S. Court of
Appeals and requires all petitions to be filed not later than 60 days
after an order is issued with allowances, of course, for special
circumstances.
I would like to reiterate that nothing in this bill is intended to
cut off debate or limit input on the local level in any way. It does
not usurp the rights or responsibilities of a State or airport sponsor
to carry out an airport project.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent piece of legislation. We have
worked together closely with the minority. Both sides of the aisle have
been consulted, and we have worked with local and State governments and
other stakeholders in this important process; and I think we have a
good consensus on an excellent piece of legislation. I urge Members to
support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation pending before us, as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) has just described has as its purpose to speed up
construction of runways, taxiways, airside improvements at airports
that have dragged on far too long in the past.
Perhaps the most egregious example or comparison would be that of the
Chek Lap Kok Airport in Hong Kong, an airport built in the ocean in 300
meters of ocean depth, 12,500 feet runways, a 23-mile rail-truck
highway link to downtown Kowloon, a terminal to handle 90,000
passengers, started at the same time as the third runway at Seattle.
Chek Lap Kok has been completed at a cost of over $25 billion, is now
handling 15 to 20 million passengers a year; and I was out in Seattle a
year ago for the bulldozing of the first load of dirt to start work on
the third Seattle runway. Now, that is an egregious example, as I said;
but it is one that underscores the frustration that airport
authorities, airlines, and air traveling passengers have with our
airport expansion program.
If we are going to accommodate the more than 1 billion passengers to
use the U.S. airways in the next 5 to 10 years, then we have to do a
better job of moving airport projects along to enhance and expand
capacity.
But it is misleading to say that environmental issues alone are the
factors causing 10- to 15-year delays in building runways. The FAA
reviewed the runway construction process, studied a number of major
construction projects which have been described as taking 10 to 15
years to complete, and found generally that the Federal environmental
impact process took 3 to 4 years. Now, that certainly is in the view of
many people too long, but it is not 15 years. The major cause when we
look at the facts more closely as reported by FAA, the major cause of
delay is the time needed to complete the local political process
mandated by State law and local ordinance.
Under our system, as distinguished from many other places and most
other countries in the world, it is not the Federal Government that
decides to build an airport, except in the case of Dulles or Reagan
National Airport, which are the only two owned by the Federal
Government. It is the local government that makes that decision. Once
they have, the Federal process comes into play.
I think that we should speed up the environmental process by doing a
great deal of the work concurrently, and coordinate State and Federal
approvals; but each proposal has to be evaluated on its own and on
itself. We have to be careful that we are only streamlining
environmental processes, not superseding them.
There are many positive provisions in this bill that will move the
process along without undermining the National Environmental Policy
Act. There is a procedure for DOT to take the lead in a cooperative
initiative where all the State and Federal agencies that have
environmental responsibilities agree to deadlines, agree to coordinate
their review, and to do those reviews concurrently rather than
sequentially. That would be a very big improvement on the existing
process. I think that is a strong and constructive initiative that we
have brought forward.
There is also more flexibility in this legislation to address local
community
[[Page H4364]]
concerns by allowing restrictions on use of new runways, use of Federal
airport funds for environmental mitigation, and allow FAA to accept
money from airports to hire additional staff to process the
environmental reviews more expeditiously. I think that is constructive.
If these reasonable, responsible, thoughtfully constructed steps are
followed, the environmental process will not be preempted. It will be
speeded up, and the environmental will not take a bad rap in the name
of efficiency or expeditious movement of airport construction process.
On the whole we have a good bill, a reasonable one that properly
managed will move our airport expansion needs ahead in a responsible
manner. I think it will go a long way toward accelerating the
environmental process without sacrificing environmental processes. I
commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the extensive
cooperation that we have had on this legislation, and the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for his
thoughtful consideration of the views that we have offered on our side;
and I also commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his
dedicated work over many hours on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the words that have
been said by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
This legislation will not change everything overnight, but it will
expedite the process of building airports, we think, in a more
expeditious time period. As the gentleman mentioned, the airports built
in the Asian market were built in a short period of time, and Seattle
has had 19 years and has not even flown an airplane off the new runway
that is going to be built.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is needed at this time. Prior to 9-11, the
biggest complaint was congestion and delays in our airports. I believe
although air traffic is down now, it will return in the near future;
and we need these new airports as our population grows. We need these
new airports as commerce grows, and this is a way to get these airports
built on time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining
Approval Process Act of 2002.
I am pleased to be moving forward with this legislation. Last year,
airport gridlock dominated the aviation debate. Passengers were
bitterly complaining about the intolerable delays they were forced to
endure. We examined those issues and found that one of the main reasons
for the congestion was the lack of airport capacity.
There was a crying need for new runways and improved airport
infrastructure. Air-21 provided the funding for these improvements, but
bureaucratic red tape often held up needed construction. Now attention
has shifted to airport security, and rightly so. Air traffic is down
and the need for airport capacity improvements is less compelling. But,
I am confident that air traffic will pick up again. And when it does,
congestion and delays will return with a vengeance unless we do
something about it now. That is why I introduced this bill. This
legislation directs the Department of Transportation to take a lead
role in the environmental review process.
DOT will coordinate the actions of other agencies and will be
responsible for determining the ``purpose and need'' and reasonable
alternative to the project. I do not claim that this bill will build
new runways overnight, but it will streamline the process and help
airports meet the demands of air travelers more quickly. And, it should
be noted, it will do this without undermining the environmental laws or
the ability of citizens to have their voices heard in the process.
I would like to thank chairman Mica, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr.
Lipinski, for their help and cooperation on this legislation. There
were some difficult issues in this bill and I very much appreciate the
bipartisan approach to resolving them.
I urge a yes vote on H.R. 4481.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for yielding me this time and express my sincere appreciation
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) for the outstanding cooperation that we have on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is a pleasure to
work with these gentlemen because they always strive to do what is best
for the American flying public.
Mr. Speaker, I lend my support to H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining
Approval Process Act. In the true fashion of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, this is a bipartisan measure that
will expedite the environmental review and approval process for key
airport capacity projects.
In the last decade, only six of our Nation's largest airports have
managed to complete new runway projects, as it currently takes about 10
years or more to simply plan and approve such a project. And as we are
about to reach pre-September 11 traffic, and will eventually pass these
levels, we need to streamline and speed up the environmental review
process in order to lessen the aviation congestion that plagues our
Nation and the world. H.R. 4481 will eliminate duplication without
cutting corners that might harm the environment. Simply put, once a
community reaches consensus on an airport capacity project and the
environmental review has been finished, construction can begin in a
timely fashion.
In closing, I urge Members to support this measure that will help
lessen the worsening aviation capacity crunch that we are facing in
this Nation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the previous chairman of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, one of the current Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure chairmen.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to salute and commend the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for bringing this bill to the
floor today.
The lack of publicity about this legislation should not be any
reflection on its importance because I consider this to be very, very
important legislation. In previous Congresses, we held a couple of
hearings about this problem, and we heard testimony that the average
time of completion of a runway project in this country was
approximately 10 years. In fact, we heard one witness tell us that the
main runway at the Atlanta airport took 14 years from conception to
completion, but only 33 days, those were 24-hour workdays, so we could
say 99 working days of actual construction. That is ridiculous, Mr.
Speaker.
We also heard testimony that these delays are primarily due to
environmental rules and regulations and red tape, and it was driving
the cost of these projects up so they were costing three or four times
what they should. Those costs had to be passed on to the flying public.
What this has done over the years, it has driven up the cost of air
travel. It has forced many lower-income people back onto the highways,
or made sure that they stayed on the highways instead of having the
much safer and quicker and more comfortable alternative of flying.
This is very important legislation. We passed in the last Congress
the AIR-21 bill, which was the largest aviation bill in the history of
the Congress; but we certainly will not be able to gain the full
benefits of the AIR-21 legislation unless we pass this legislation to
complement and improve that earlier bill. This will help taxpayers
receive the greatest bang for their buck on these aviation projects and
will greatly improve and hold down the cost of air travel in the
future. I think it is a very good bill, and I commend the authors and
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
{time} 1245
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed a number of documents in the form of
letters
[[Page H4365]]
or memos issued just on the eve of the consideration of this
legislation, and I want to make four points to reassure those who have
expressed concerns about the effects of this bill on environmental
procedures.
One, the bill specifically provides there is no preemption or
interference with any practice of seeking public comment or the
authority of States or the authority of airport operators to decide on
which projects they wish to undertake.
Two, the bill does not give any new authority to the FAA to create
exemptions from the environmental requirements.
Three, States have a choice of whether they want to participate in a
coordinated process.
Four, if another agency does not comply with the coordinated schedule
developed by DOT, the other agency does not lose its authority. It does
have a remedy, a report to Congress.
I think on balance we have taken into consideration the concerns
expressed in the course of the hearing and subsequently about the
effects of this legislation on environmental processes, and I urge the
adoption of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first, again, I want to thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his cooperation and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, for his kind assistance.
This legislation is authored by the chair of our full committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and it is cooperation
of this nature that allows us to move important legislation forward.
Although again not very newsworthy or legislation which brings on a
great deal of debate and controversy in the House, today we are passing
a significant measure which will allow airport streamlining for the
approval process that is so important.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill saves time and this legislation
saves money. This legislation maintains our protections, important
protections over the environment, and this legislation maintains
important local and State control and authority.
I believe it is important to move this legislation forward because it
does move our aviation infrastructure projects which are so necessary
across the country and particularly in our congested regions of the
Nation, and also this is important because it will move our economy
forward, which we know is so dependent on aviation and aviation
infrastructure.
So, with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this
legislation and support for H.R. 4481.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put on record my concerns
regarding the Airport Streamling Approval Process Act of 2002 currently
under discussion in the House.
No one can quarrel with the concept of coordinating the extensive
environmental review process required for major infrastructure projects
such as the airport construction. Major transportation, education,
energy, and other essential infrastructure projects warrant expedited
environmental review, as long as the review is thorough and complete.
However, it is critical that the same standards of review be used for
all such projects. In Northern California there is a very controversial
and disputed proposal to expand the runways at San Francisco
International Airport by filling in approximately one square mile of
San Francisco Bay. For the last several years, I have impressed upon
federal and state officials the importance of analyzing this proposal
from the perspective of meeting the long-term challenges facing
commercial aviation throughout Northern California.
The runway expansion and Bay fill proposal is seen as a solution to
the problem of too much air traffic and air traffic delays at SFO. But,
this solution will only compound the problem of traffic gridlock on our
existing freeway and highway system to and from the airport. The
permanent damage to San Francisco Bay caused by the Bay fill would only
relieve aviation congestion problems on a temporary basis, it does
nothing to address the larger issue of moving people and goods
throughout California in the most reasonable, efficient, and
environmentally prudent manner. In fact, it makes this challenge more
difficult.
As we discuss expedited review by the Federal Government of major
projects such as the San Francisco Bay fill/airport expansion proposal,
we must be mindful of thoroughly reviewing all alternatives. In the
case of San Francisco, have we considered the use of existing, under-
utilized or abandoned aviation facilities in the San Francisco/Northern
California region as an alternative to filling the Bay? Do the
increased security concerns resulting from September 11 support such an
expansion or would it be more prudent to improve other regional
facilities? Has consideration been given to segregating SFO in terms of
limiting or eliminating air cargo operations at that facility in order
to maximize passenger aviation opportunities?
I have long suggested the Federal Government coordinate its review of
all major projects in order to have a timely resolution and avoid
endless litigation and delay. Our policies in this area, however, must
be consistent and exercised with fairness, and the review must be
thorough.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the
Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002, which continues this
Congress' focus toward the expansion of airports and ignores the
quality of life issue forced on many of our constituents who live near
airports--aircraft noise.
I fully recognize the vital role the aviation industry plays in our
nation's economy, but it is time for this congress to stop focusing
solely on what's good for the airport industry and to start focusing on
what's also good for the countless individuals who live near airports
and are constantly subjected to the thunderous roar of giants jets
overhead.
While this measure does include provisions that address aircraft
noise, I firmly believe that those steps are inadequate and do not
properly address the issue of aircraft noise. Instead of addressing
legislation seeking solely to expand this nation's airports, this
Congress should also focus its attention on legislation that eliminates
aircraft noise. One measure I have introduced would ban the two loudest
types of airplane engines from all general aviation airports in the 20
largest metropolitan areas in the country. It is time that we shift our
attention away from solely the expansion of airports and toward the
problem of aircraft noise which hampers the quality of life for
countless American citizens.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4481, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________