[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1642-1651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SHORT-TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 31 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 31

       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. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     extend Federal Aviation Administration programs through 
     September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     4(a) of rule XIII or section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 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. After general debate, the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, 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 printed in the Congressional 
     Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Each section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
     amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or 
     section 302(f) or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 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. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), my very good friend, and say I am very happy to see him 
here, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will 
be for debate purposes only.
  Madam Speaker, let me first begin here by commending both the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, for their cooperation in making this first rule of 
the 106th Congress an open rule that will permit consideration of an 
important piece of legislation.
  Specifically, this resolution makes in order H.R. 99, providing for 
the temporary extension of Federal Aviation Administration programs 
under, as I said, an open rule providing for one hour of general 
debate.
  The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. The rule also 
contains several waivers that are necessary for the bill to be 
considered today.
  The waivers of sections 302(f) and 303(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act are necessary because Congress did not adopt the fiscal year 1999 
budget resolution and, pursuant to House Resolution 5, fiscal year 1999 
budget allocations have not been published in the Congressional Record.
  Also, the waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI is necessary because Title 
II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute was not part of the 
introduced bill. Title II is language for the Committee on Ways and 
Means that allows expenditures from the Aviation Trust Fund.
  Finally, the waiver of clause 4(a) of rule XIII is needed because the 
report on H.R. 99 was not filed by the Committee of Transportation and 
Infrastructure until yesterday.
  Members who preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their 
consideration will be given priority and recognition. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole is authorized to postpone votes during 
consideration of the bill and reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed 
question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a very comprehensive FAA 
reauthorization bill, but there was not enough time to work through a 
conference with the other body. As a result, the omnibus appropriations 
bill passed last year contained only a 6-month extension of the FAA's 
Airport Improvement Program. That short-term extension expires on March 
31 of this year.
  In order to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and the full House time to develop a comprehensive FAA reauthorization 
bill this year, we need to extend the 6-month short-term authorization 
through the rest of this fiscal year. Without passage of H.R. 99, no 
new Airport Improvement Program grants can be issued after March 31. 
AIP grants fund a variety of airport safety and capacity-enhancing 
projects such as runway extensions, taxiway construction, and noise 
abatement projects. As more and more people fly every day, it is 
important to maintain the highest safety standards at our Nation's 
airports.
  I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
plans to bring to the House a comprehensive aviation reform bill later 
this year that will address many very important and complex issues. 
Those issues may range from whether to increase the number of airport 
slots at busy airports, to what kind of passenger protection provisions 
should be included, to how the Aviation Trust Fund should be handled. 
These complex

[[Page 1643]]

issues cannot be fully addressed before the current AIP reauthorization 
expires. Passage of H.R. 99 provides Congress with enough time to 
produce a comprehensive aviation reform bill.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this very 
fair, balanced, and open rule and also the bipartisan FAA 
reauthorization legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my dear 
friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Madam Speaker, I want to publicly congratulate the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), my chairman, my dear friend, for bringing this 
totally open rule to the floor. May every one of his rules be as open 
as this, Madam Speaker. It is a great, great start.
  Madam Speaker, last year the House passed a bill to improve our 
airports. Unfortunately, the Senate did not pass a similar bill. If we 
do not pass this bill, the Federal Aviation Administration will not be 
able to issue grants after March 31 of this year.
  That will mean, Madam Speaker, that the much-needed airport 
construction that is already under way will have to stop, and the new 
expansion and improvement of programs will just not get off the ground.
  Madam Speaker, according to the Air Transport Association, the United 
States had 605 million airline passengers in 1997. In 1998 we had about 
2 million passengers a day. In the next 10 years, Madam Speaker, that 
number is expected to increase to 1 billion people flying in and out of 
our airports each year.
  The airline delays in this country's 18,000 airports cost the airline 
industry about $2.5 billion each and every year. Most of that ends up 
as ticket costs for consumers.
  In 1997 the U.S. airlines placed orders and options for orders for 
nearly 1,400 new aircraft. That is a lot more planes and a lot more 
congestion. It is estimated that it will cost about $8 billion a year 
to pay for our airport development needs caused in part by these new 
planes.

                              {time}  1115

  Madam Speaker, many of our airports are just not equipped to handle 
the growing crowds. As anyone who has faced a late airplane or an 
overcrowded airport can tell us, our airports need work. They need a 
lot of work.
  We need to get our airport safety systems up to date. We need to make 
our airports bigger. We need to update our traffic control systems. 
This bill will make all that happen.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues tell me that the House will take up the 
regular FAA improvement bill later this year, but we need to pass this 
temporary bill today in order to make sure construction proceeds in the 
interim. Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we will miss the construction season 
and delay these long overdue improvements even further.
  Madam Speaker, there is very little opposition to this bill. It was 
reported out of committee by a voice vote.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very open 
rule and the accompanying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very energetic, hardworking and 
peripatetic chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who is eager to 
address this issue.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the powerful chairman of 
the powerful Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I will 
limit my gratitude until I look up the word ``peripatetic.'' I may or 
may not amplify that. In any event, it is a pleasure to be here with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who is a longtime friend 
and a great legislator, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) 
who is also a longtime friend and a great legislator.
  Madam Speaker, I speak in support of H.R. 99, a bill to extend the 
authorization for certain Federal Aviation Administration programs for 
6 months, through September 30, 1999. However, I want to stress my 
support for H.R. 99 extends only to the bill as currently drafted.
  My concern is that if H.R. 99 passes the House, it might become a 
vehicle to go to conference on a much broader bill from the other body. 
If that were to happen, many important aviation issues, including the 
addition of slots to the four slot-controlled airports, might come back 
in a conference report without any opportunity for House amendments. I 
have raised this concern with the Speaker, the majority leader and the 
majority whip. It is my understanding they will not allow H.R. 99 to 
become a vehicle for such a broader conference. With that 
understanding, I am certainly willing to support H.R. 99 so that the 
FAA's authorization will not expire at the end of March. Let me 
conclude by saying that I appreciate the cooperation of each of our 
three leaders in clarifying this matter so this important legislation 
can move forward.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I urge support of this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 31 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 99.

                              {time}  1119


                     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 the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 99) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal 
Aviation Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for 
other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. It is a 
very simple bill which extends the Airport Improvement Program because 
it was reauthorized for only 6 months last year. As a result, the FAA's 
Airport Improvement Program funding is set to expire on March 31. If 
that were to happen, there would be no funds available for very, very 
important airport safety and capacity improvement projects, such as 
runway extensions and taxiway constructions. Already aviation delays 
cost the industry billions of dollars. In fact, in 1997 delays cost the 
carriers $2.4 billion which, of course, gets translated into costs that 
are imposed ultimately upon the traveling public and the aviation 
passengers. So it is very important that this legislation, this simple 
extension, be passed.
  We indeed do intend to bring to the floor major legislation later in 
the year. That is not what we have here today. All we have here today 
is a simple extension. I would point out that the AIP contract 
authority authorized by this legislation is fully consistent with the 
CBO baseline for this program as well as the 6-month contract authority 
established in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. I would 
strongly urge support for this important legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 1644]]


  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in urging swift passage 
of H.R. 99, and I want to compliment him for making this the top issue 
of the committee's agenda in this Congress. He rightly saw at the 
conclusion of the 105th Congress that, as we dealt so masterfully under 
his gifted and vigorous leadership with the surface transportation 
needs of this country, that our next focus had to be the Nation's 
airways and airports. This simple 6-month extension is, in a sense, a 
down payment on the committee's commitment at the end of the last 
session and the beginning of this to address vigorously and in a broad, 
visionary concept the Nation's aviation requirements.
  I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the leadership and vigor 
they have put forth in bringing this bill to the floor and on the 
preparation that has gone into the subsequent legislation that we will 
consider. While the number 99 is rather fortuitous, just quite by 
accident the bill carries the number H.R. 99, it is symbolic, and it 
is, I think, a wonderful gesture that the very first aviation bill we 
bring to the floor carries the name of the oldest organization of women 
aviators, the 99s, formed in the late 1920s.
  In bringing this bill to the floor, we in this, I think, very special 
way pay a tribute to women who have contributed so much to the growth 
of aviation and development of aviation in this country and perhaps 
suggest to the commercial airlines of the United States that they make 
as much room in the flight deck for women as general aviation has made 
room for women in that sector. Perhaps with this bill we can use the 
encouragement of the committee to advance the cause of careers for 
women in aviation.
  At the close of the last session, it was a disappointment to our 
committee that we were not able to reach an agreement with the other 
body on a long-term reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program 
and all other aspects of aviation. We had hoped to reach an agreement, 
but numerous obstacles, including the one cited by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) just moments ago during consideration of the rule 
proved to be problems. So we bring to the House floor a very simple 6-
month extension. But, as I said, it is a downpayment. It ensures, and I 
urge the other body to act quickly on this legislation, it ensures that 
after March 31 with signature of this bill into law, the funding for 
the FAA airport improvement grant program will be able to continue, 
that the investment plans of the Nation's airports will carry forward. 
I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Illinois and 
I share this concern representing northern tier States. If we do not 
provide for the continued funding of the AIP program, surely contracts 
will be slowed down, airport projects in northern tier States will be 
slowed down. We cannot afford that. We have a very limited construction 
season. We need these projects to move ahead as quickly as possible. 
That is why this legislation is so vitally important.
  Furthermore, I think we have to look at the broader picture of 
aviation and the significant impact of aviation on our national 
economy. It represents a $600 billion sector of our $7 trillion 
domestic economy. That is about 8 percent of our domestic economy that 
is driven directly by aviation. We can get multiples if we took 
secondary impacts. There are 1.5 million jobs just in the United States 
alone with a $100 billion payroll. But worldwide, the impact of air 
transport is in the range of $1.5 trillion. That is growing at a rate 
of 6 and 7 percent a year in international trade and passengers and 
cargo. Those economic gains, though, will be slowed down and the 
potential of aviation economic contribution to the domestic and 
international economy will be slowed down if we do not have the vision 
to pass this legislation and the broader bill that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and the committee will bring to the floor in the next few 
months.
  Congestion and weather are the two biggest enemies of efficient air 
travel. Weather is a factor in over half of the congestion cases that 
we experience in the course of a year. But inadequate infrastructure is 
the other contributing factor. Often these two issues converge. If we 
take an airport like Newark that has only a 950-foot separation between 
its two main runways, in worst weather conditions they can operate only 
one runway. If they had full separation of the required minimum mile 
between the two runways, even in the worst weather conditions they 
could operate both runways to the maximum possible permitted by their 
combination of air traffic control equipment and the ability to keep 
runway surfaces clear in snow and other conditions, icy conditions. But 
with runways that close together, they have to shut down one of them in 
worst weather conditions.
  There are many other airports across this country that face the same 
problem. As we extend runways and widen the separation between runways, 
build more hard air side capacity, we increase the ability of our 
airports to serve the needs of airlines and air travelers.
  In 1987, a year in which I chaired the oversight committee and held 
hearings on aviation capacity, the FAA estimated to our committee that 
there were 21 airports with delays of 20,000 hours a year and more. By 
10 years later, within a decade, there were 27 such airports with 20 to 
50,000 hours of delay a year. What does that mean to the airlines and 
to air travelers? Well, Delta Airlines cited traffic inefficiencies 
costing that carrier $360 million a year.

                              {time}  1130

  It adds up to several billions of dollars of cost to the airlines and 
to air travelers when they cannot reach their destinations in time or 
they get there and the gates are crowded, the aircraft cannot park at 
the gate. We have to respond to that situation.
  The National Civil Aviation Review Commission found that, quote, 
although 19 out of 20 of the busiest airports in the world are in the 
United States, this Nation can no longer claim that it has the world's 
most modern air traffic control system.
  The second aspect of aviation is the technology to increase capacity 
and make carrier movements more efficient. This legislation continues 
funding of the air traffic control technology side of aviation to 
improve capacity at the Nation's airports.
  The hard fact is, though, that we are not meeting the on-the-ground 
requirements of runway extension, runway addition, taxiways and gate 
capacity at our Nation's airports.
  According to GAO, even with the AIP funds included in this bill we 
are falling short of the airport capacity capital requirements of this 
country by as much as $3 billion a year. That is why we need to pass 
this bill now, give ourselves a little time to craft larger, broader 
legislation that will deal over the next decade with the capacity 
requirements of our Nation's airports and air travelers.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Aviation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, last year, as has been pointed out by some of the 
previous speakers, a comprehensive FAA reauthorization package, H.R. 
4057, passed the House and a companion bill was passed in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, conference negotiations broke down and only a short-
term six-month extension for the airport improvement program was passed 
as part of the omnibus appropriations bill.
  This bill, H.R. 99, would extend the FAA's airport improvement 
program and fund the FAA's operations and facilities equipment programs 
through the end of fiscal year 1999. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier)

[[Page 1645]]

has already explained the great importance of these programs, 
especially at a time of such rapid growth in both commercial passenger 
traffic and air cargo traffic.
  Last year, we carried for the first time in history with not a single 
fatality, a single commercial air fatality, 615 million passengers. 
This year, that figure is scheduled to go up to 660 million and, as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pointed out, to over a 
billion at some point in the very near future, certainly within the 
next decade.
  With the passage of this bill, $10.3 billion for the FAA's program 
would be authorized for 1999. Also at the request of the House 
Committee on Ways and Means, we have added a provision to extend the 
general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. We 
are also planning to introduce a long-term comprehensive 
reauthorization bill, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) 
has pointed out, in conjunction with our attempt to take the trust fund 
off budget in H.R. 111.
  In the comprehensive bill, we will attempt to take care of many of 
the requests we receive each year from Members concerning airport and 
aviation needs. However, since AIP funding will expire as of March 
31st, it is very important to pass H.R. 99 to extend this funding at 
least through the end of year, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINKSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for yielding 
this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to say that I am sure that this 
year will be very interesting, very exciting and very productive for 
aviation in this Nation. I am sure behind the leadership of the 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), that we will solve all the 
problems of aviation in this Nation and probably solve a few of them 
that extend beyond our boundaries.
  Getting down to the specific legislation, which I rise in strong 
support of, H.R. 99, the AIP program is vital to airports of all sizes 
throughout the Nation. The AIP program provides grants to fund needed 
safety, security, capacity, in noise projects. Without H.R. 99, 
important airport projects will be disrupted and delayed.
  For example, Midway Airport, which is located in my Congressional 
district, and which I consider to be the number one airport in all of 
Chicagoland, is beginning a multiyear, $722 million terminal 
development program, $138 million of which will be provided by the 
FAA's AIP program.
  If the AIP program expires, Midway Airport will have to rely on other 
sources such as the PFC and rates and charges to fund the current phase 
of the terminal project which, more than likely, will increase costs 
for the future users of the terminal. In addition, the City of 
Chicago's Department of Aviation relies on the AIP program to fund 
noise mitigation projects. If the AIP program expires, schools around 
both O'Hare Airport and Midway Airport will have to wait another full 
year for badly needed sound insulation.
  H.R. 99 is also needed to ensure that the AIP program receives the 
full $1.95 billion provided by the Omnibus Appropriation Act for fiscal 
year 1999. The omnibus bill provided $1.95 billion for the AIP program 
for fiscal year 1999. However, it also limited the amount of the AIP 
program that could actually be spent before March 31, 1999, to $975 
million. The AIP program will be entitled to the full appropriated 
amount of $1.95 billion only if H.R. 99 is passed and the AIP program 
is authorized through the end of the fiscal year.
  With the capital needs of airports estimated to be about $10 billion 
per year, we cannot afford to cut funding for the AIP program in half. 
If we do not pass H.R. 99, we will, in effect, cut funding for the AIP 
program in half for fiscal 1999.
  Consequently, once again I rise in strong support along with the 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) on behalf of H.R. 99.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I insert for the Record the 
correspondence between the House Committee on Ways and Means and the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure regarding title II 
of the bill:

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 1999.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bud: I understand that on Thursday, January 6, 1999, 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved 
     H.R. 99, a bill providing for a 6-month extension of Federal 
     Aviation Administration programs.
       As you know, the Trust Fund Code includes specific 
     provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means which govern trust fund expenditure authority and 
     which limit purposes for which trust fund moneys may be 
     spent. Statutorily, the Committee on Ways and Means generally 
     has limited expenditures by cross-referencing provisions of 
     authorizing legislation. Currently, the Trust Fund Code 
     provisions allow expenditures from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund before October 1, 1998. Similarly, the Trust Fund 
     Code approves all expenditures from the Airport and Airway 
     trust fund permitted under previously enacted authorization 
     Acts, most recently the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     of 1996, as in effect on the date of enactment of the 1996 
     Act.
       I now understand that you are seeking to have H.R. 99 
     considered by the House as early as the first week in 
     February. In addition, I have been informed that your 
     Committee will seek a Manager's or Committee amendment to the 
     bill which will include language I am supplying (attached) to 
     address the necessary trust fund provisions. The amendment 
     would extend until October 1, 1999, the general expenditure 
     authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update 
     the expenditure purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide 
     that, generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue 
     Code.
       Based on this understanding, and in order to expedite 
     consideration of this legislation, it will not be necessary 
     for the Committee on Ways and Means to markup this 
     legislation. This is being done with the further 
     understanding that the Committee will be treated without 
     prejudice as to its jurisdictional prerogatives on such or 
     similar provisions in the future, and it should not be 
     considered as precedent for consideration of matters of 
     jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means in 
     the future.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter, 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 99, and 
     would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be placed in the Record during consideration of the 
     bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation and 
     assistance on this matter. With best personal regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.
   TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE 
                               AUTHORITY

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 1999'', and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the 
     Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 
     1999''.
       (b) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Section 9502 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Limitation on Transfers to Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted 
     by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure 
     is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
       ``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or 
     referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
       ``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently 
     enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive 
     the application of this subsection.

[[Page 1646]]

       ``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract 
     entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before 
     October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.''.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill, Thank you for your recent letter regarding the 
     bill, H.R. 99, providing for an extension of programs of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration through the end of Fiscal 
     Year 1999. You are correct that we are drafting a Manager's 
     amendment for the House Floor debate. I appreciate your 
     willingness to have us include in this amendment the 
     necessary changes to the Trust Fund Code which governs trust 
     fund expenditure authority. The amendment would extend until 
     October 1, 1999, the general expenditure authority for the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, would update the expenditure 
     purposes of the Trust Fund, and would provide that, 
     generally, expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund may occur only as provided in the Internal Revenue Code. 
     Attached is the amendment we plan to offer on the House 
     Floor.
       To accelerate the consideration of H.R. 99 on the House 
     Floor, I appreciate your willingness to forego marking up 
     this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee. Of course, 
     I understand that your action under these circumstances 
     should not affect the Ways and Means Committee's 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar provisions in 
     the future.
       As you requested, I will be including a copy of your 
     letter, and my reply in the Record during consideration of 
     the bill on the Floor. Thank you for your cooperation on this 
     matter.
       With warm regards, I remain
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bud Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____


                   Amendment to H.R. 99, as Reported,

                 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program 
     Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.
     TITLE I--EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$1,205,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting the following: ``$2,410,000,000 for 
     fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
       (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended by 
     striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     1999''.

     SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

     SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--
     Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--
     Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Fiscal Years 
     1994-1998'' and inserting ``Fiscal Years 1994-2000''; and
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
       (c) Limitation on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--Section 
     48108(c) of such title is amended by striking ``1998'' and 
     inserting ``2000''.

     SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.

       Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (g); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
   TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE 
                               AUTHORITY

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 1999'', and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the 
     Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 
     1999''.
       (b) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Section 9502 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Limitation on Transfers to Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted 
     by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure 
     is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
       ``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or 
     referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
       ``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently 
     enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive 
     the application of this subsection.
       ``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract 
     entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before 
     October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.''.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, this bill is absolutely essential. The 
first portion, to extend the AIP program, is extremely important to 
local airports which are in the midst of planning and construction 
cycles. Since the current authorization expires in less than 60 days, 
if we do not pass this bill, these airports will be at a loss as to 
what to do and how to proceed. Airports have received only half of 
their normal grant money for this year, and if we do not pass this 
bill, they will not receive the remainder. Furthermore, since airport 
construction projects are unique and long-term, this shortfall will 
create serious problems for airport planners who have to schedule these 
projects in phases.
  Beyond that, this bill gives us time to begin a larger debate about 
making sure that America's airport infrastructure and aviation systems 
are the best in the world. At this point, although I believe they are 
very good, they are slipping compared to the rest of the world. The 
debate about airport funding, safety, security and the aviation 
industry as a whole needs to start with this legislation.
  Let me speak about one area in particular that I am acquainted with, 
and that is acquiring computers and planning the software and hardware 
for the new air traffic control system. In a very interesting study 
several years ago, then-Senator Cohen, who is currently Secretary of 
Defense, came to the startling realization that the present procurement 
policies for the Federal Government absolutely guarantee that every 
computer the Federal Government will buy is obsolete at the time it is 
purchased.
  Now how is this possible? Because in the time it takes to go through 
the specifications procedure, the actual procurement and purchase 
procedure and follow all the required Federal guidelines, roughly two 
years will have elapsed--more likely three years. As everyone knows, 
according to Moore's law, computer speed doubles every 18 months, and 
it is generally acknowledged that after three years computers have lost 
their usefulness in the industrial realm. Although people may continue 
to use them longer, they are no longer optimizing their investment, and 
if it takes us three years to decide which computer to buy and then buy 
it, we are always buying obsolete computers.
  We have tried to correct that in the case of the FAA a few years back 
by giving them more leeway in the procurement process, but it is still 
not enough. What FAA has done to try to get around this is to keep 
changing the specifications as they go along to ensure that they will 
have up-to-date computers and will have the advanced software needed to 
manage the new air traffic control system, the so-called free-flight 
system. It is not working very well, it is not working very 
efficiently, and I do not blame the FAA for this; I blame the 
requirements that are imposed on this agency, being subject to the 
requirements that all Federal agencies have to meet.
  But we are struggling here with a situation where this is a rapidly 
evolving field, the airlines are progressing very

[[Page 1647]]

rapidly, the air traffic control system must evolve as rapidly, and we 
must develop the best hardware and the best software to handle the 
complex air traffic control system of the future. We cannot do that 
under the current authorization, and I hope when we complete the 
extension of reauthorizing the FAA in this bill, that then we will have 
a good bill ready that will allow us to address all these handicaps, 
that will allow us to develop an air traffic control system and an FAA 
that is second to none in the world, that will indeed match the 
performance of our airlines and will match the performance that we 
expect from any agency that is regulating various industries. Then we 
will be a help and not a hindrance to the airline industry.
  Once again I want everyone to understand clearly I am not castigating 
the current FAA administrator. She is doing a marvelous job. I am not 
castigating her staff. I am simply saying that we have to change the 
rules of the game and give them the flexibility they need. We made a 
great step a few years ago. We have to go further, and I hope, as we 
rewrite this bill, we will be able to do that.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from the State of my birth, 
Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is making a very 
important statement, and I hope that Members are paying careful 
attention to the observations of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) about the complexities of contracting in the FAA for the 
requirements of our air traffic control system.
  It is an issue that our former colleague, Mr. Clinger, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for many years, and with the 
gentleman's help, bringing his able scientific physics background to 
bear on this issue of keeping ahead of the technology, and impeded as 
we were, as the FAA is, by ancient contracting rules that were devised 
during the Civil War era for buying mules for the U.S. Army, still in 
place for acquiring air traffic control computer equipment. As the 
gentleman has observed, we need to simplify that process. Let us bend 
every effort as we proceed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

                              {time}  1145

  We will do this as we proceed with the broader authorization bill to 
make every effort to address that issue and to help the FAA complete 
its task of modernization of the air traffic control system. I thank 
the gentleman for raising this very important subject.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman, and would agree that computers change much more rapidly than 
mules. We must make sure that we have a top-flight system in operation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time. I am not a member of the committee, but I have 
been long supportive of the work of the Republican and Democratic 
leaders of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 
assuring a sound transportation infrastructure for our Nation. It is 
vital, not only to our Nation's present quality of life, but to the 
quality of life for our children.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 99, but I would like to spend my 
moments here, if I might, talking about aircraft noise.
  Aircraft engines make a lot of noise. They are loud, droning, and, in 
some cases, unbearable to be near. People living in major metropolitan 
areas where there are often several airports nearby have to live with 
this oppressive aircraft noise. It has an extremely negative impact on 
the quality of their lives and on their health.
  In an attempt to address this problem, the Airport Noise and Capacity 
Act of 1990 was enacted. This law requires jet aircraft to be equipped 
with newer technology, quieter Stage 3 engines by December 31, 1999. It 
ends the operation of the older, noisier, Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft 
engines.
  As a result of that law, major commercial airliners have already 
phased out most of their Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft. But, 
unfortunately, the law exempted aircraft weighing less than 75,000 
pounds.
  Planes weighing less than 75,000 pounds are typically general 
aviation aircraft. However, even though these general aviation aircraft 
are smaller than commercial airliners, in most cases they are louder 
than commercial airliners, because most of them are still equipped with 
the Stage 2 or Stage 1 engines.
  Therefore, air noise problems in our most densely populated areas in 
the United States will not go away unless we have an across-the-board 
elimination of Stage 2 and Stage 1 aircraft engines, including engines 
of all general aviation aircraft.
  Let me give you an example. At Teterboro Airport, in New Jersey, in 
my district, Teterboro Airport has roughly 15 percent of the aircraft 
using Teterboro with the Stage 1 or Stage 2 aircraft, only 15 percent, 
but that 15 percent of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft account for 90 
percent, 90 percent, of all the aircraft noise violations at the 
airport.
  So, the solution: I am introducing the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act 
of 1999, which will close this loophole and prohibit the operation of 
all older, louder, Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft engines in the 20 
largest metropolitan areas with the worst air-noise problems.
  In heavy aircraft traffic areas, like New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, 
Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Seattle, 
Cleveland, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and 
Denver, the residents surrounding these airports are being continuously 
pounded with aircraft noise and they are demanding action. They need 
relief from aircraft noise now, and we must give them that relief now.
  This legislation achieves a balance, the need for the aircraft noise 
relief for these residents living in our Nation's most congested areas, 
with the legitimate economic needs of small aircraft operators who need 
to land in smaller airports away from our Nation's largest cities.
  I am hopeful that the leaders of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation will work with me to 
see that this legislation is included in the FAA's reauthorization 
bill.
  I hope my colleagues will work with me to help provide aircraft noise 
relief, not only to my constituents, but to the millions of Americans 
all across this country who presently suffer from aircraft noise.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield one minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99, the FAA Short 
Term Extension Act. I wish to congratulate the full committee chairman, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, the Subcommittee on 
Aviation chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) in drafting this together on a bipartisan 
basis.
  This bill is extremely important to Ontario International Airport, 
located in my district. H.R. 99 reauthorizes funding for the Airport 
Improvement Program through September 31, 1999, and makes several minor 
changes to FAA programs. Specifically, the measure authorizes $2.3 
billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $7.8 billion for FAA 
operations, facilities and equipment.
  The bill includes funding for airport improvements, air traffic 
control facilities and equipment, and the salaries and expenses of 
operating the FAA.

[[Page 1648]]

  Finally, H.R. 99 includes funds for new radars, computers and 
navigation equipment that are needed to modernize the air traffic 
control system and ensure that air travel remains safe.
  I ask my colleagues to pass this bill with their strong support.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Brown), a very valuable member of our committee.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee 
on Aviation, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill 
and to work with us to make this, what we are calling on the committee, 
the year of aviation. Last year was one of the safest years in American 
aviation history and I think that this administration, as well as this 
Congress, should be commended for taking part in this.
  We have a lot of work to do this year, not only to maintain our 
safety record, but also in preparing our aviation system for the 
challenges of the 21st Century.
  In my home state of Florida, aviation is a key part of our economy, 
which is heavily based on trade and tourism. In the next decade, Miami 
will handle 35 million passengers, Orlando 30 million, and Jacksonville 
will continue to be a key intermodal location for aviation, rail and 
shipping traffic. The grants and programs authorized in this bill, 
including the airport improvement programs, are critical for the health 
and safety of aviation in this country.
  In addition to supporting this extension, I also support using 
aviation trust fund dollars for aviation purposes, and I look forward 
to making this the year of aviation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield two minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to commend the Members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, especially the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Chairman Duncan), and the ranking subcommittee member, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and to express my appreciation 
and support for H.R. 99.
  My appreciation is enhanced, especially because there are no 
controversial provisions in this bill to add flights to our Nation's 
high density airports. There are no provisions to change the perimeter 
rule at Reagan National Airport. This legislation merely extends 
funding for the programs under the auspices of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, including the Airport Improvement Program.
  In the Washington area, air service is extremely competitive. 
Consumers have a choice between three fine airports, and no one airline 
dominates air service in Washington, as is the case in many major 
cities.
  This high level of competition exists in large part because of the 
slot and perimeter rules that are in effect at Reagan National Airport. 
Because of the slot and perimeter rules, the Washington area enjoys 
twice as many daily flights available from domestic destinations and a 
wider competitive choice than almost any other area in the country.
  Changes in these rules would destroy the environmental and economic 
balance that exists among Reagan National Airport, Washington Dulles, 
and Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
  The vote and perimeter rules were part of the good faith agreement 
among Federal, local and airport officials which promoted passage of 
the 1986 legislation that transferred control of National and Dulles 
from the FAA to a local authority, MWAA. The provisions have the effect 
of abating noise, and any changes would have a negative impact on the 
airport's neighbors in Maryland and Virginia.
  Madam Chairman, the slot and perimeter rules are essential to the 
balance of service to the greater Metropolitan Washington region. I am 
grateful that H.R. 99 does not make any change to these essential 
flight limitations.
  I urge a yes vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of the 
measure before us today. While I support the goal of the legislation 
and compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for 
their good work in moving expeditiously on this important authorization 
extension, I fear this measure will undergo substantial and dangerous 
changes in the other body or during conference.
  Madam Chairman, I object to efforts to increase takeoff off and 
landing slots at existing high density airports, such as La Guardia in 
my district. As such, I strongly oppose any efforts to add language 
that would accomplish this goal.
  As my colleagues may know, it is an open secret that legislation to 
increase takeoffs and landings at the Nation's four high density 
airports will likely be accepted in any conference on the FAA short 
term extension.
  I would strongly encourage the chairman and ranking member not to go 
outside of the normal legislative process by adding in conference any 
legislation or proposals that would increase takeoffs and landings at 
the four high density airports. This is an issue which deserves to be 
considered separately on its own merits in a full and open debate.
  Madam Chairman, increased competition in the airline industry, 
reduction of fares and expansion of the market to allow small, low fare 
airlines to compete with larger carriers are all worthy goals that 
deserve to be fully reviewed. And while I am not opposed to taking 
steps to increase competition in the airline industry, I cannot support 
efforts which would do so at the expense of the quality of life of my 
constituents and others who live and work near high density airports.
  My Queens constituency, flanked to the north by La Guardia Airport 
and to the south by JFK International Airport, live under the most 
heavily-utilized section of air space in the world. How can this 
Congress in all good conscience mandate substantial increases in this 
already heavily burdened area?
  Madam Chairman, while my constituents are primarily concerned about 
the excessive aircraft noise and associated ground traffic at La 
Guardia that they must deal with each and every day, morning, noon and 
night, they are also concerned about their safety and that of the 
traveling public. And in light of a number of near collisions at La 
Guardia Airport within the past year, it would seem that those concerns 
are not unwarranted.
  Madam Chairman, for Congress to act at this time to mandate the 
allocation of even more slots at La Guardia and other high density 
airports would be, I believe, unconscionable. At the very least, the 
committee should have a full and thorough debate on this issue prior to 
acting on legislation to increase takeoffs and landings at these 
airports.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from New York and our 
colleague from Illinois who addressed this matter previously during 
consideration of the rule.
  We confronted this issue of slots in the 105th Congress, and we have 
had extensive discussion about this subject matter, and it is far more 
complex than appears on its face. The gentleman is right to express his 
concern that this issue should not be addressed in the context of this 
short-term extension. I would be vigorously opposed to any attempt to 
address the matter in the context of this bill, and I hope the 
gentleman will support the legislation with that understanding.
  Certainly the issue of slots at the slot-controlled airports deserves 
far more extensive consideration than could possibly be given in the 
context of a short-term extension bill, and I

[[Page 1649]]

know that the chairman shares that concern. We are not about to let 
this legislation be sidetracked by an issue of this magnitude, and I 
urge the gentleman to support our legislation.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of 
legislation extending Federal Aviation Administration programs an 
additional six months.
  I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for taking quick action 
to ensure that Federal Aviation Administration programs, and the 
Airport Improvement Program in particular, will not expire at the end 
of next month.
  I regret, however, that even with enactment of this legislation, two 
airports that are entitled to receive more than $20 million in Airport 
Improvement Program grants will still be unable to receive these funds.
  In fact, more than $200 million in critical construction projects for 
National and Dulles Airports, funded in part with passenger facility 
charges (PFCs), are being held hostage pending resolution of the 
Aviation Competition Act.
  At the center of this debate are the rights of one local authority 
pitted against some members of Congress who want to direct the 
operations of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
  I was prepared to offer an amendment to release these funds and grant 
approval of the passenger facility charges, but recognize the desire of 
the Chairman and Ranking member to pass a ``clean'' FAA reauthorization 
bill.
  I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns of 
the members from this region.
  I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to keep the bill ``clean'' in 
conference.
  I am deeply concerned about provisions in the Senate bill that take 
us a step back and bring controversy and invite opposition to this 
important legislation.
  I am, of course, referring to provisions about to be considered by 
the Senate Commerce Committee that would increase the number of flights 
to the four slot controlled airports.
  In the case of National Airport, the Senate legislation would add an 
additional 24 slots to this congested airport and lift the perimeter 
rule permitting half of these slots to fly beyond the current 1250 mile 
perimeter restriction.
  Madam Chairman a change in the perimeter rule would result in a cut 
back in locations presently served by National within the perimeter and 
adversely affect the development of the Washington region's three 
commercial airports.
  According to studies based on Washington air travel market data 
produced by the Washington Airports Task Force, every city with flights 
to National that generates revenues of less than $20 million would be 
vulnerable to service reductions.
  Over time, short-range service at National would be displaced and the 
number of transcontinental flights operating out of Dulles would 
decline.
  As those transcontinental flights decline, Dulles would cease to 
become an attractive destination for international service.
  The growth and development plans overseen by Congress and the 
substantial investment made at both National and Dulles by the 
taxpayers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation 
community would become substantially devalued.
  Madam Chairman, not a day goes by that someone's quality of life is 
not adversely affected by the constant drum of airplanes taking off and 
landing at National airport.
  For their sake, we should not change the rules they have begrudgingly 
come to accept.
  The balance that has now been struck between the transportation and 
economic needs of air travelers and the region's environmental concerns 
was crucial to community acceptance of the redevelopment of National, 
now nearing completion.
  While these communities understand that National is here to stay, 
they should not be asked to endure additional noise when no compelling 
public need is served or could be addressed in other ways without 
altering the slot and perimeter rules.
  Congress agreed in 1986 to cede control of National Airport to a 
regional authority who would have ``full power and dominion over, and 
complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.''
  In return, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland agreed to 
accept operational control of the airports and raise the money 
necessary to modernize National and Dulles airports.
  Madam Chairman, the two states, the District and the regions' 
residents have upheld their part of the bargain.
  It is time for Congress to honor its part.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 99, 
the short-term extension of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is 
critical that we move forward with this bill quickly to ensure that the 
airport improvement program will continue to receive funding and grants 
to airports will be honored. In this, the Year of Aviation, we have 
much to consider and much to accomplish to make our skies even safer 
and air traffic more efficient and accessible. This short-term 
reauthorization will give this House and the Senate adequate time to 
more fully consider longer-term aviation authorization and competition 
issues. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I would like to take some 
time to talk about some of my concerns regarding H.R. 99, the FAA 
reauthorization legislation. I recognize that this bill funds some very 
important and critical programs, including operation and maintenance of 
the air traffic control system, safety inspections, and other Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) activities. It does an adequate job 
ensuring that our airports and airways are safe and efficient.
  Madam Chairman, I've had personal experience with the FAA and the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as a community activist, a state 
Senator, and now as a Member of Congress. In fact, I grew up about a 
mile from the Seattle/Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), so I know 
how people are affected by airports first hand.
  The Port of Seattle has been attempting to expand SeaTac for more 
than nine years. Over those years, I've had several problems with the 
way the Port and the FAA have dealt with this proposed expansion 
project. I feel they have severely underestimated the environmental 
impacts the new runway would have on local communities, including the 
potential financial costs of implementation. They have also failed to 
adequately evaluate other potential problems, including increased 
traffic that would arise from construction and the increased noise 
expansion would have on local schools and neighborhoods. Overall, I 
strongly believe the FAA and the Port have shown a disregard for the 
concerns of the local citizens who will have to bear the brunt of the 
negative results of this proposed expansion.
  Considering my experience with this program, I believe there are 
three things that could have been included in the legislation that 
would have made it better for those that live and work around our 
countries' airports. First, I have concerns over the current executive 
branch dealing with pollution from aircraft. The principle agency in 
the federal government that deals with environmental impact is the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, when it comes to 
pollution resulting from aircraft it is the FAA. This wasn't always the 
case. Previously, the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the EPA 
was responsible for coordinating federal noise abatement activities, 
updating and developing new noise standards, and promoting research and 
education on the impacts of noise pollution. This office was eliminated 
in 1982. I believed the FAA has a strong disincentive for effectively 
handling aircraft pollution because their main function is to expand 
and promote aviation. On the other hand, the EPA is in a much better 
position to fairly analyze pollution from aircraft and thus effectively 
implement policy to deal with these impacts, because its chief 
objective is to protect people against dangerous environmental 
problems. I feel the bill should have transferred these powers from the 
FAA to EPA in order to properly study and better protect citizens in my 
district and others from aviation pollution.
  Second, I would like to have seen the bill set aside more funds to 
directly compensate the public for the damage that it will have on 
their lives. A study has determined that the impact that the proposed 
3rd runway would have on my constituents is around $4 billion, but the 
plan by the Port includes only $50 million in mitigation costs. This is 
clearly unfair. The citizens of communities surrounding the airport 
would have to bear the brunt of mitigating the environmental problems 
surrounding the proposed project, despite having very little input and 
decision making authority. I feel that the bill could have authorized 
more money for the use of directly compensating individuals impacted by 
new construction for areas like my district.
  Third, I'm very concerned about the lack of congressional and local 
input in the decision making authority for approving FAA discretionary 
grants for new airport construction. While I understand the meaning of 
a discretionary program is that the federal agency has the discretion 
in determining whether to appropriate the funds, I believe the current 
system so substantially displaces legislative input that it trumps the 
spirit of the separation of powers of our three branches of government, 
which is a critical part of our representative democracy. The Port of 
Seattle and the FAA negotiated a Record of Decision in July of 1997, 
despite

[[Page 1650]]

serious objections from myself and my constituents. Our system is 
designed to have Members of Congress represent the concerns and 
interests of their home districts and thus executive decisions that 
impact a certain group of people should only be done with the 
consideration of the opinions of the Member who represents those 
people. I do not feel that my concerns have adequately been taken into 
consideration during this process, and I feel this is wrong.
  Overall, I feel that the concerns of local citizens and thus Members 
of Congress who represent them are not sufficiently taken into 
consideration under the AIP, and will continue to advocate for changes 
to this program in the future. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered by sections as 
an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Pursuant to the rule, 
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 or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Improvement Program 
     Short-Term Extension Act of 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 101.
  The text of section 101 is as follows:

     TITLE I--EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$1,205,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting the following: ``$2,410,000,000 for 
     fiscal years ending before October 1, 1999.''.
       (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended by 
     striking ``March 31, 1999'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 101?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 102.
  The text of section 102 is as follows:

     SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 48101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) $2,131,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 102?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 103.
  The text of section 103 is as follows:

     SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--
     Section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$5,158,000,000'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``$5,632,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--
     Section 48104(c) of such title is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Fiscal Years 
     1994-1998'' and inserting ``Fiscal Years 1994-2000''; and
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2000''.
       (c) Limitations on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--
     Section 48108(c) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``1998'' and inserting ``2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 103?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 104.
  The text of section 104 is as follows:

     SEC. 104. AIP DISCRETIONARY FUND.

       Section 47115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (g); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 104?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 201.
  The text of section 201 is as follows:

   TITLE II--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE 
                               AUTHORITY

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 1999'', and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A) the following: ``or the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 or the 
     Airport Improvement Program Short-Term Extension Act of 
     1999''.
       (b) Limitation on Expenditure Authority.--Section 9502 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Limitation on Transfers to Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     amount may be appropriated or credited to the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is not permitted 
     by this section. The determination of whether an expenditure 
     is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
       ``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or 
     referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
       ``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently 
     enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive 
     the application of this subsection.
       ``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract 
     entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before 
     October 1, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 201?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman 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. 99) to 
amend title 49, United States Code, to extend Federal Aviation 
Administration programs through September 30, 1999, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 31, she 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.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The 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. SHUSTER. 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.
  This vote will be followed by two 5-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 408, 
nays 3, not voting 22, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               YEAS--408

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett

[[Page 1651]]


     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Obey
     Paul
     Smith (WA)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Cooksey
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (OH)
     Kasich
     Lantos
     Largent
     Livingston
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Rogan
     Rush
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Wilson

                              {time}  1223

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was unavoidably detained for 
rollcall vote 9. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 99, 
the Federal Aviation Administration Short-Term Extension, I would have 
voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________