[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22867-22868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      EXTENDING CERTAIN EXPIRING FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 
                             AUTHORIZATIONS

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S.1637) to extend through the end of the current fiscal 
year certain expiring Federal Aviation Administration authorizations.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 1637

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ETC.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$2,050,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 1998 and 
     ending August 6, 1999.'' and inserting ``$2,410,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999.''.
       (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) of such title 
     is amended by striking ``August 6, 1999,'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 1999,''.
       (c) Liquidation of Contract Authorization.--The provision 
     of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, with the caption ``Grants-in-Aid 
     for Airports (liquidation of contract authorization) (airport 
     and airway trust fund)''  is amended by striking ``Code: 
     Provided further, That no more than $1,660,000,000 of funds 
     limited under this heading may be obligated prior to the 
     enactment of a bill extending contract authorization for the 
     Grants-in-Aid for Airports program to the third and fourth 
     quarters of fiscal year 1999.'' and inserting ``Code.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an extremely important bill to our Nation's 
airports. The FAA's authority to make construction grants to airports 
under the Airport Improvement Program expired on August 6 of this year. 
At that time there was still $290 million available for such grants, 
but this money could not be spent without a further authorization.
  Since the expiration of the program, there have been no AIP 
discretionary grants given out to our Nation's airports. This bill 
would release the remaining $290 million of AIP funds to those airports 
whose grant applications the FAA has approved. All of this

[[Page 22868]]

money comes out of the Aviation Trust Fund, which is entirely supported 
by passenger ticket taxes and general aviation fuel taxes.
  The money was assumed in last year's omnibus appropriations bill, so 
spending it now will not add a dime to the Federal deficit. More than 
150 airports in every state in the Nation will benefit from these 
grants. It is essential that we move quickly on this bill.
  The fiscal year ends on Thursday, and this bill must be signed into 
law before then in order for these necessary funds to be released. The 
Senate passed this bill on Friday, so favorable action by the House now 
would clear the measure for the President. I would expect the President 
to sign this bill. The FAA could then begin issuing the grants 
immediately. Given the late date, it should do this without the usual 3 
day prior notification.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fully support this bill so that 
airport grant money will not be wasted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of passage of S. 1637. This bill 
provides for extension of the Airport Improvement Program through the 
end of fiscal year 1999 and allows the Federal Aviation Administration 
to release the remaining AIP funds for this fiscal year to fund 
critical airport development projects. Each state will get additional 
aviation resources by the action the House will take today.
  The best solution for the Nation's airports and air traffic control 
system is a long-term reauthorization bill that will unlock the trust 
funds, as we have done in legislation that has already passed the 
House. We are acting today in a responsible manner to assure that 
airports do not lose available funding.
  This past June 15 the House passed H.R. 1000, the Aviation and 
Investment Reform Act, AIR 21, by an overwhelming vote of 316 to 110. 
This critically important legislation is needed to move the aviation 
system into the 21st Century by providing adequate long-term funding 
for the FAA and for the Airport Improvement Program.
  Unfortunately, the other body has not been able to pass a 
comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill. The House approach is 
preferable, but with the AIP program lapsed as of August 6, a short-
term extension is better than losing scarce and precious airport 
development dollars. But this extension should not be misread by 
anyone. We will continue to insist on a long-term reauthorization bill 
for fiscal years 2000 to 2004.
  The Nation's aviation system increasingly is in gridlock. Passenger 
frustration is growing and airport capital needs are underfunded by at 
least $3 billion a year. We have to ensure long-term funding and a 
management reform plan for the FAA to address these problems, as we 
have already done in legislation crafted by the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan).
  It is appalling that we have reached a situation of gridlock when 
there are aviation revenues unused in the Aviation Trust Fund, 
specifically, as the chairman already cited, $290 million for AIP. I 
understand the concerns that have been expressed that the FAA may be 
unable to issue grants by the end of the fiscal year. The reason for 
that is language in the manager's statement in the conference report 
for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill passed in the spring 
of 1998.
  In that report, the managers directed the Department of 
Transportation to notify the Committee on Appropriations not less than 
3 business days before any AIP grant is announced by the department. If 
that requirement is imposed on the pending bill, it may not be possible 
to make all grants authorized by this legislation before the end of the 
fiscal year, after which, of course, the funds will no longer be 
available.
  As a matter of law, we do not believe that the discussion in the 
conference report on the fiscal year 1998 supplemental emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill imposes any requirement with respect 
to funds authorized for fiscal year 2000 by the pending bill. The 
Committee on Appropriations does not have jurisdiction to impose 
permanent conditions applying to funds made available in the future. 
Had the Committee on Appropriations attempted to impose a permanent 
requirement of prior notice through legislative language, that language 
would have been subject to a point of order under rule XXI, clause 2, 
of the rules of the House.
  To resolve any questions about this matter, I state affirmatively 
that it is the intention of the pending bill that grants be made as 
promptly as possible and that the announcement of grants not be delayed 
for the purpose of giving prior notice to any Congressional committee.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the other body 
to get agreement on a long term reauthorization bill.
  I also want to express my strong concern over aviation provisions in 
the DOT appropriations bill passed by the other body. If these 
provisions are included in the bill reported from conference, I will 
have difficulty supporting that bill.
  My greatest concern is that the bill passed by the other body 
includes legislative earmarks for airport development projects.
  This is a dangerous precedent. We have never done so in House 
authorization bills in aviation. We have objected to any such language 
in appropriations bills. Until now our airport development funds have 
been allocated by safety professionals in the Department of 
Transportation. These officials are in the best position to make 
objective decisions as to where limited Federal funds should be 
invested for the maximum benefit, for the safety and efficiency of our 
airport and air traffic control system.
  Our aviation system is a complex national interrelated system. Its 
development must be managed by officials who have the big picture in 
mind and who understand these interrelationships.
  Although the bill passed by the other body has only a few legislative 
earmarks, some might argue, I would state that it is a dangerous 
precedent which should be ended now. Our chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and I have both expressed these concerns in 
a letter to the appropriations conferees, and I take this opportunity 
to reaffirm that letter and to stand firm against this very bad and 
very dangerous precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to, because of the necessity for fast 
action on this, request that the clerks expedite their processing of 
the papers in regard to this legislation, and I urge support of all of 
my colleagues for this very worthwhile and important legislation in 
regard to our Nation's airports.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 1637.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________