[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12263-12267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE FOR H.R. 1000, AVIATION 
             INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record the official 
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1000, unanimously 
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 
27, 1999. As part of an agreement, the committee had received unanimous 
consent to file its report by 6 p.m. on May 28, 1999. Unfortunately, 
CBO was unable to complete the official cost estimate by 6 p.m., and 
the committee had to include a committee cost estimate in its report. 
That estimate is superseded by the CBO estimate.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, May 28, 1999.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation
     and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1000, the 
     Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 12st Century.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The principal CBO staff contact for 
     federal costs is Victoria Heid Hall, who can be reached at 
     226-2860. The staff contact for the private-sector impact is 
     Jean Wooster, who can be reached at 226-2940, and the contact 
     for the state and local impact is Lisa Cash Driskill, who can 
     be reached at 225-3220.
           Sincerely,
                                                Barry B. Anderson,
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
       Enclosure.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

     H.R. 1000--Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
         century
       Summary: H.R. 1000 would authorize funding for programs of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) primarily for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004. CBO estimates that 
     implementing H.R. 1000 would result in additional outlays 
     totaling about $56 billion over the 2000-2004 period. That 
     total assumes appropriation action consistent with the bill's 
     authorizations and the levels of new contract authority it 
     provides for aviation programs. Outlays for the programs 
     authorized by the bill would grow from an estimated $9.2 
     billion in 1999 to $14.8 billion in 2004. We also estimate 
     that enacting the bill would increase direct spending outlays 
     by about $46 million over the same period. Revenues would 
     decline by $35 million over the five-year period. Because 
     H.R. 1000 would affect both direct spending and receipts, 
     pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
       The bill would provide an additional $7.1 billion in 
     contract authority for the airport improvement program (AIP) 
     over the 2000-2004 period (above the $2.4 billion a year 
     assumed in the baseline), but providing this contract 
     authority would not affect outlays from direct spending 
     because AIP outlays are subject to appropriation action. (The 
     increase in estimated AIP outlays is included in the 
     discretionary total cited above.) H.R. 1000 also would 
     increase direct spending authority for the Essential Air 
     Service (EAS) program by $10 million each year. We estimate 
     that enacting that change would increase outlays by $46 
     million over the 2000-2004 period. Furthermore, the bill 
     would allow the Secretary of Transportation to authorize 
     certain airports to charge higher passenger facility fees and 
     would expand a pilot program that provides for the innovative 
     use of airport improvement grants to finance airport 
     projects. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) expects that 
     these provisions would result in an increase in tax-exempt 
     financing and a subsequent loss of federal revenue. JCT 
     estimates that the revenue loss would be $35 million over the 
     2000-2004 period and $142 million over the 2000-2009 period.
       H.R. 1000 would take the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     (AATF) off-budget and exempt AATF spending from the 
     discretionary spending caps, pay-as-you-go procedures, and 
     Congressional budget controls (including the budget 
     resolution, committee spending allocations, and 
     reconciliation process). Title X would provide for adjusting 
     AIP contract authority upward based on the difference between 
     the amounts appropriated and the amount authorized for FAA 
     operations, facilities and equipment, and research and 
     development. Any adjustments would begin in fiscal year 2001.
       H.R. 1000 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 
     that the costs would be significant and would not meet the 
     threshold established by that act ($50 million in 1996, 
     adjusted annually for inflation). Overall, the bill would 
     provide significant benefits to airports operated by state 
     and local governments. Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the 
     application of that act any legislative provisions that would 
     establish or enforce certain statutory rights prohibiting 
     discrimination. CBO has determined that section 706 fits 
     within that exclusion. Section 4 also excludes from the 
     application of that act any legislative provisions that are 
     necessary for the ratification or implementation of 
     international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that 
     section 710,

[[Page 12264]]

     which implements provisions of the Convention on 
     International Civil Aviation, fits within that exclusion.
       H.R. 1000 would impose new private-sector mandates by 
     requiring safety equipment for specific aircraft, imposing 
     consumer and employee protection provisions, and imposing new 
     requirements for commercial air tour operations over national 
     parks. Those mandates would affect owners of fixed-wing 
     aircraft, air carriers, end-users of aircraft parts, 
     operators of commercial air tours, and owners and operators 
     of cargo aircraft. CBO estimates that the total direct costs 
     of the mandates would not exceed the annual threshold for 
     private-sector mandates ($100 million in 1996, adjusted for 
     inflation).
       Description of the bill's major provisions: Title I would 
     authorize the appropriation of $47.6 billion for FAA 
     operations, facilities, and equipment for fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004. Title I also would provide $19.2 billion in 
     contract authority for the FAA's airport improvement program 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
       Title I would allow the Secretary of Transportation to 
     authorize certain airports to charge higher passenger 
     facility fees than under current law. This title also would 
     expand a pilot program that provides for the innovative use 
     of airport improvement grants to finance airport projects. 
     Title II would establish a federal credit program to assist 
     commuter air carriers in purchasing regional jet aircraft. 
     Title II also would increase the amount of direct spending 
     authority for the EAS program and would authorize the use of 
     appropriations to FAA operations for that program.
       Title III would provide that, of the amounts appropriated 
     for FAA operations in fiscal year 2000, up to $1.5 million 
     may be used to obtain contractual audit services to complete 
     a report on FAA's costs and on the allocation of such costs 
     among different FAA services and activities.
       Title IV would make the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) 
     inapplicable to aviation incidents, thereby broadening the 
     circumstances under which relatives can seek compensation for 
     the death of a family members in an aviation incident over 
     the ocean.
       Title V would establish civil penalties for individuals who 
     interfere with or jeopardize the safety of a cabin crew or 
     other passengers.
       Title VI would provide whistleblower protection for 
     employees of air carriers who notify authorities that their 
     employer is violating a federal law relating to air carrier 
     safety. The bill would set up a complaint and investigation 
     process within the Department of Labor (DOL).
       Title VII would extend the war risk insurance program and 
     prohibit the FAA from charging fees for certain services. 
     This title would provide that, of the amounts appropriated 
     for FAA operations in fiscal year 2000, $2 million may be 
     used to eliminate a backlog of equal employment opportunity 
     complaints at the Department of Transportation (DOT).
       Title VIII would make clear that the FAA has the authority 
     to regulate aircraft overflights affecting public and tribal 
     lands, and would establish a process for the FAA and the 
     National Park Service (NPS) to coordinate the development and 
     implementation of such regulations.
       Title IX would place receipts to and sending from the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AAFT) off-budget and exempt 
     the fund from any general budget limitations. Title IX and X 
     would provide for periodic adjustments to the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for the FAA based on estimated 
     and actual deposits to the AATF and on appropriations action.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Over the 2000-
     2004 period, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1000 would 
     result in additional discretionary outlays of about $56 
     billion, additional direct spending outlays of $46 million, 
     and a net loss of federal revenues of $35 million. The 
     estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1000, excluding the 
     potential impact of title X, is shown in the following table. 
     The costs of this legislation fall primarily within budget 
     function 400 (transportation).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1999            2000            2001            2002            2003            2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Spending Under Current law:
    Budget Authority \1\................................           7,654               0               0               0               0               0
    Estimated Outlays \1\...............................           9,247           3,458           1,347             512             166              78
Proposed Changes: \3\
    Estimated Authorization Level.......................               0           7,572           8,950           9,886          10,357          10,860
    Estimated Outlays...................................               0           6,020           9,653          12,095          13,687          14,710
Spending Under H.R. 1000: \3\
    Estimated Authorization Level: \1\..................           7,654           7,572           8,950           9,886          10,357          10,860
    Estimated Outlays...................................           9,247           9,478          11,000          12,607          13,853          14,788
 
                                                           DIRECT SPENDING--EXCLUDING TITLE X
 
Baseline Spending Under Current Law:
    Estimated Budget Authority \4\......................           2,410           2,460           2,460           2,460           2,460           2,460
    Estimated Outlays...................................               0              30              50              50              50              50
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................               0              75           1,600           1,700           1,850           1,950
    Estimated Outlays...................................               0               6              10              10              10              10
Spending Under H.R. 1000:
    Estimated Budget Authority \4\......................           2,410           2,535           4,060           4,160           4,310           4,410
    Estimated Outlays...................................               0              36              60              60              60              60
 
                                                                   CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues......................................               0              -1              -3              -6             -11             -14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for FAA's operations account and facilities and equipment account.
\2\ Estimated outlays under current law are from amounts appropriated for 1999 and previous years for the FAA operations account and the facilities and
  equipment account, as well as the discretionary outlays from the AIP obligation limitations, assuming a full year of authority in 1999.
\3\ H.R. 1000 authorizes such sums as necessary for the FAA operations account and for the facilities and equipment account for fiscal year 2000. The
  table reflects a level for 2000 equal to the amounts provided in 1999--that is, without any adjustment for anticipated inflation. Alternatively, if
  the 1999 level is increased to adjust for inflation, the 2000 level would be $300 million higher, resulting in $300 million more in outlays over the
  2000-2004 period.
\4\ Budget authority for AIP is provided as contract authority, a mandatory form of budget authority; however, outlays from AIP contract authority are
  subject to obligation limitations contained in appropriation acts and are therefore discretionary. CBO's baseline projections assume a full year
  budget authority will be provided for AIP for fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent year. The full-year total is 1.2 times the $2,050 million provided
  through August 6, 1999.

       The preceding table excludes the potential effects of title 
     X, which would provide for adjustments to AIP funding, 
     beginning in fiscal year 2001. The annual adjustments would 
     be derived by comparing the amounts authorized for FAA 
     operations, facilities and equipment, and research and 
     development, and the amounts provided in appropriations acts 
     for those purposes. If appropriations equal the authorized 
     amounts, then there would be no adjustment in AIP contract 
     authority. Any adjustment would constitute new direct 
     spending authority because it would be triggered by title X; 
     however, all outlays for AIP would still be subject to 
     obligation limitations established in appropriation acts. 
     Depending on the appropriation actions, this provision could 
     result in additional AIP contract authority of up to $40 
     billion over the 2001-2004 period, as shown in the following 
     table. (The maximum contract authority would result if no 
     appropriations were provided for the accounts in question.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1999            2000            2001            2002            2003            2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING--TITLE X \1\
 
Estimate Budget Authority...............................               0               0           8,950           9,886          10,357          10,868
Estimate Outlays........................................               0               0               0               0               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The amounts shown are potential additions to AIP contract authority attributable to section 1001 of title X.

       Basis of estimate: Implementing H.R. 1000 would affect 
     spending subject to appropriation, direct spending, and 
     revenues. Estimates of outlays are based on historical 
     spending patterns for the affected programs and on 
     information provided by DOT and FAA staff.

[[Page 12265]]


     Spending subject to appropriation
       For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1000 
     will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2000, and 
     that the amounts authorized for aviation programs will be 
     appropriated for each fiscal year.
       FAA Operations. H.R. 1000 would authorize the appropriation 
     of such sums as necessary for FAA operations for fiscal year 
     2000. The bill also provides that funds, appropriated for FAA 
     operations in fiscal year 2000 may be used for a number of 
     new activities, including $2 FAA operations in fiscal year 
     2000 may be used for a number of new activities, including $2 
     million to eliminate a backlog of equal opportunity 
     complaints at DOT, up to $1.5 million to study the use of 
     recycled materials in aviation pavement, and up to $1.5 
     million to obtain contractual audit services to complete the 
     Inspector General's report on the FAA's costs and cost 
     allocations. In total, we estimate that the additional 
     activities would require appropriations of $5 million for 
     2000. For fiscal years 2001 through 2004, the bill would 
     authorize specific annual amounts totaling $28,553 million.
       In the absence of specific authorizations for FAA 
     operations in 2000, CBO estimates the amounts of the 2000 
     authorization based on the 1999 funding levels, with and 
     without adjustments for inflation. The FAA received an 
     appropriation of $5,567 million for operations in 1999. If 
     that level is not adjusted for inflation between 1999 and 
     2000, CBO estimates that the funding level for fiscal year 
     2000 would be $5,572 million (including an additional $5 
     million for the new activities cited above). CBO estimates 
     that appropriation of that amount in 2000 and the authorized 
     levels specified in the bill for 2001 through 2004 would 
     result in additional outlays for FAA operations totaling 
     $33.3 billion over the 2000-2004 period (excluding outlays 
     from amounts appropriated in 1999 and prior years). 
     Alternatively, if the Congress increased funding for 
     operations in 2000 to account for inflation, we estimate that 
     the funding level for that year would be $5,825 million. 
     Combining that amount with the specified authorizations for 
     2001 through 2004 would yield additional outlays of $33.5 
     billion for FAA operations over the 2000-2004 period.
       H.R. 1000 also provides that funds appropriated for FAA 
     operations may be used for certain activities and programs 
     beginning in fiscal year 2001. Assuming that the Congress 
     appropriates the amounts authorized in the bill for FAA 
     operations for the years 2001 through 2004, we expect that 
     earmarking amounts for the programs described below would not 
     have any significant impact on outlays for FAA operations.
       Section 211 would establish a program to provide commuter 
     air carriers with federal loans, loan guarantees, or lines of 
     credit for the purchase of regional jet aircraft. The program 
     is designed to improve service by jet aircraft to smaller 
     airports and to markets that the Secretary of Transportation 
     determines have insufficient air service. Section 212 
     provides that, from appropriations for FAA operations for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, such sums as 
     necessary may be used to carry out the program, including 
     administrative expenses. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 
     1990 requires appropriation of the subsidy costs and 
     administrative costs for credit programs. The subsidy cost is 
     the estimated long-term cost to the government of a direct 
     loan or loan guarantee, calculated on a net present value 
     basis and excluding administrative costs. Based on 
     information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the subsidy 
     appropriation necessary to implement this program would total 
     about $80 million over the 2001-2004 period, and that outlays 
     for this program would be $60 million over the five-year 
     period. CBO estimates that administering the credit program 
     would cost about $11 million over the 2001-2004 period. The 
     bill would permit the Secretary to charge fees to cover all 
     costs to the federal government of making such loans and 
     would allow the Secretary to spend the fee receipts generated 
     to administer the program. For purposes of this estimate, we 
     assume the Secretary would not charge any fees.
       Section 202 provides that, of amounts appropriated for FAA 
     operations beginning in fiscal year 2001, up to $15 million 
     each year may be used to subsidize air carrier service to 
     airports not receiving sufficient service as determined by 
     the Secretary of Transportation. Such amounts would be in 
     addition to the spending authorized under current law for the 
     EAS program. CBO estimates that implementing this section 
     would result in outlays of $54 million over the 2001-2004 
     period from the operations account, assuming appropriation of 
     the necessary amounts.
       Section 131 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to 
     establish a pilot program to contract for air traffic control 
     services at certain towers that do not qualify for the 
     current contract tower program. The pilot program would 
     include a federal contribution to the costs of constructing 
     control towers at up to two facilities. The section provides 
     that, of the amounts appropriated for FAA operations 
     beginning in fiscal year 2000, up to $6 million may be used 
     each year for the pilot program. Because $6 million was 
     earmarked for cost sharing for contract towers in the fiscal 
     year 1999 appropriation for FAA operations, we estimate that 
     enacting section 131 would not affect the outlay rate.
       FAA Air Navigation Facilities and Equipment. H.R. 1000 
     would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary 
     for air navigation facilities and equipment (F&E) in fiscal 
     year 2000 and specified amounts for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2004.
       FAA received an appropriation of $2,000 million for F&E in 
     1999 (excluding $87 million that was provided in a separate 
     appropriation specifically for addressing year 2000 computer 
     problems). CBO estimates that appropriation of that amount in 
     2000 and the authorized levels specified in the bill for 2001 
     through 2004 would result in additional outlays for F&E 
     totaling $10.3 billion over the 2000-2004 period (excluding 
     outlays from amounts appropriated in 1999 and prior years). 
     Alternatively, if the Congress increased F&E funding in 2000 
     to account for inflation, the estimated funding level for 
     that year would be $2,047 million. Combining that amount with 
     the specified authorizations for 2001 through 2004 would 
     yield additional outlays of $10.4 billion for F&E over the 
     2000-2004 period.
       FAA Airport Improvement Program. Title I would provide 
     $2,410 million in contract authority (a mandatory form of 
     budget authority) for the airport improvement program for 
     1999 and a total of $19,175 million in contract authority 
     over the 2000-2004 period, as discussed below in the section 
     on direct spending. That amount represents $7,125 million in 
     contract authority above the amount assumed in CBO's March 
     1999 baseline. For purposes of this estimate, we assume that 
     the obligation limitations for AIP contained in annual 
     appropriation acts for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 would 
     equal the amounts of contract authority that would be 
     provided in this bill.
       Other Provisions. Based on the current costs of operating a 
     whistleblower protection program at the Department of Energy, 
     CBO estimates that the administrative costs of operating the 
     new DOL program provided in section 601 would be less than $1 
     million a year.
       Based on information from the NPS and the FAA, CBO 
     estimates that discretionary outlays to conduct planning and 
     rulemaking for park overflights, complete air tour management 
     plans (including environmental analyses), and monitor any 
     overflight limits established in such plans would total $29 
     million over the 2000-2009 period. This process is already 
     underway, and we expect that these costs will be incurred 
     within the next 10 years under current law, assuming 
     appropriation of the estimated amounts. CBO estimates that 
     the provisions of title VIII dealing with park overflights 
     would cause no significant change in FAA or NPS spending over 
     the next five years. We estimate that operating the joint 
     advisory group would cost the agencies a total of about 
     $25,000 each year.
       H.R. 1000 contains several additional provisions that would 
     require the FAA to conduct studies, complete reports, issue 
     rulemakings, and develop test programs. CBO assumes that such 
     costs would be funded from the authorizations provided in the 
     bill for FAA operations, facilities, and equipment. In total, 
     CBO estimates that these studies, rulemakings, and reports 
     would cost about $1 million in fiscal year 2000.
     Direct spending
       Relative to CBO's March 1999 baseline, enacting title I of 
     the bill would provide an additional $7,125 million in 
     contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for 
     the airport improvement program for fiscal years 1999 through 
     2004. It also would extend the authority of the Secretary of 
     Transportation to incur obligations to make grants under that 
     program.
       Under current law, $2,050 million in AIP contract authority 
     for fiscal year 1999 is available for obligation until August 
     6, 1999, equivalent to an annual rate of $2,410 million. 
     Title I would bring the total contract authority for fiscal 
     year 1999 up to the baseline level of $2,410 million and 
     would provide a total of $19,175 million in contract 
     authority over the 2000-2004 period. Consistent with the 
     Budget Enforcement Act, CBO's baseline projections assume 
     that a full year of contract authority ($2,410 million) will 
     be provided for AIP in fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent 
     year. Therefore, relative to the baseline, enacting title I 
     would not affect contract authority for 1999, and would 
     increase contract authority by a total of $7,125 million over 
     the 2000-2004 period.
       Expenditures from AIP contract authority are governed by 
     obligation limitations contained in annual appropriation acts 
     and thus are categorized as discretionary outlays. For 
     purposes of this estimate, we assume that appropriation acts 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 will set obligation 
     limitations for AIP equal to the annual levels of contract 
     authority provided in this bill (as discussed above).
       Section 202 would increase DOT's direct spending authority 
     for the EAS program by $10 million each year, beginning in 
     fiscal year 2000. In 1999, the program has $50 million of 
     funding from amounts made available to FAA in discretionary 
     appropriations, and it has a permanent, mandatory level of 
     $50 million a year for future years. Section 202 would 
     increase that mandatory level to $60 million a year. We 
     estimate that additional

[[Page 12266]]

     outlays from the increased authority would total $46 million 
     over the 2000-2004 period. (This provision is in addition to 
     the authorization for additional discretionary spending for 
     EAS out of amounts appropriated for FAA operations.)
       Section 715 would prohibit the FAA from charging fees for 
     certain FAA certification services pertaining to particular 
     products manufactured outside the United States. Based on 
     information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the forgone 
     receipts would total about $1 million a year beginning in 
     fiscal year 2000 and as much as $4 million a year in future 
     years. Because the FAA has the authority to spend such fees, 
     a reduction in such fee collections would also reduce 
     spending; therefore, we estimate that this provision would 
     have no significant net effect on direct spending over the 
     2000-2004 period.
       Section 404 would amend title 49 of the U.S. Code so that 
     the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920 (DOHSA) would not 
     apply to aviation incidents. Under DOHSA, a family can only 
     seek compensation if the relatives were financially dependent 
     upon the deceased. By making DOHSA inapplicable to aviation 
     incidents, section 404 would broaden the circumstances under 
     which relatives can seek compensation for the death of a 
     family member in an aviation incident over the ocean. It 
     could also lead to larger awards. Based on information from 
     DOT, CBO estimates that it is unlikely that enacting section 
     404 would have a significant impact on the federal budget. 
     The provision could affect federal spending if the government 
     becomes either a defendant or a plaintiff in a future civil 
     action related to aviation. Since any additional compensation 
     that might be owed by the federal government under such an 
     action could be paid out of the Claims and Judgments Fund, 
     the provision could affect direct spending. But CBO has no 
     basis for estimating the likelihood or outcome of any such 
     actions.
       Section 708 would extend the authorization for the FAA's 
     aviation insurance program through December 31, 2004. Under 
     current law, the aviation insurance program will end on 
     August 6, 1999. Enacting this provision could cause an 
     increase in direct spending if new claims would result from 
     extending the insurance program. Moreover, such new spending 
     could be very large, particularly if a claim exceeded the 
     balance of the trust fund and the FAA had to seek a 
     supplemental appropriation. But historical experience 
     suggests that claims under this program are very rare; 
     therefore, extending the aviation insurance program would 
     probably have no significant impact on the federal budget 
     over the next five years.
     Revenues
       H.R. 1000 would authorize the Secretary of Transportation 
     to allow certain airports to charge higher passenger facility 
     fees than under current law. JCT expects that this provision 
     would allow airports to generate more income from fees, which 
     would be used to back additional tax-exempt debt. Such debt 
     would result in a loss of federal revenue. JCT estimates a 
     revenue loss of about $33 million over the 2000-2004 period 
     and about $136 million over the 2000-2009 period.
       The bill also would expand a pilot program that provides 
     for the use of airport improvement grants to implement 
     innovative financing techniques for airport capital projects. 
     These techniques include payment of interest, purchase of 
     bond insurance, and other credit enhancements associated with 
     airport bonds. While the first pilot program, enacted in 
     1996, included these provisions, the early use of the program 
     was geared more toward changing federal/local matching 
     ratios. In addition, the earlier authorization provided for 
     no more than 10 projects. This provision represents an 
     expansion to 25 pilot projects. It is designed to leverage 
     new investment financed by additional tax-exempt debt. JCT 
     expects that this provision would lead to an increase in tax-
     exempt financing and a resulting loss of federal revenue. JCT 
     estimates a loss of revenue of about $2 million over the 
     2000-2004 period and about $6 million over the 2000-2009 
     period.
       H.R. 1000 would authorize the FAA to impose a new civil 
     penalty on individuals who interfere with the duties and 
     responsibilities of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil 
     aircraft, or who pose an imminent threat to the safety of the 
     aircraft. The bill also would impose civil penalties on air 
     carriers that discriminate against handicapped individuals 
     and on violators of certain other provisions. Based on 
     information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the civil 
     penalties in H.R. 1000 would increase revenues, but that the 
     effect is likely to be less than $500,000 annually.
       Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go 
     procedures for legislation affecting direct spending and 
     receipts. The net changes in outlays and receipts that are 
     subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the 
     following table. For the purposes of enforcing such 
     procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget 
     year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays...................................        0        6       10       10       10       10       10       10       10       10       10
Changes in receipts..................................        0       -1       -3       -6      -11      -14      -17      -19      -21      -24      -26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Changes in the budgetary control of aviation spending: H.R. 
     1000 would change the budgetary status of funding for 
     aviation programs by placing the AATF off-budget and removing 
     AATF funding from discretionary caps altogether. The bill 
     also provides for periodic adjustments in FAA authorization 
     levels based on AATF receipts and appropriation action.
     Exempting AATF spending from budgetary control and 
         enforcement procedures
       Beginning in fiscal year 2001, title IX would take the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) off-budget and exempt 
     trust fund spending from the discretionary spending caps, 
     pay-as-you-go procedures, and Congressional budget controls 
     (including the budget resolution, committee spending 
     allocations, and reconciliation). By itself, taking the AATF 
     off-budget would not change total spending of the federal 
     government and would not affect spending or revenue estimates 
     for Congressional scorekeeping purposes. However, because 
     title IX would exempt AATF spending from the budgetary 
     control and enforcement procedures that apply to most other 
     programs, spending for air transportation would likely 
     increase insignificantly. The amounts of potential increases 
     are uncertain because they would depend upon future actions 
     by both authorizing and appropriations committees.
     Adjustments to FAA authorizations and program funding
       Beginning in calendar year 2000, title IX would require the 
     Secretaries of Transportation and the Treasury to estimate, 
     by March 31 of each year, whether the unfunded aviation 
     authorizations at the close of the subsequent fiscal year 
     exceed net aviation receipts to be credited to the AATF 
     during the fiscal year. If the unfunded authorizations exceed 
     estimated receipts, authorizations for appropriations from 
     the trust fund would be reduced. It is unclear how this 
     provision would be implemented, but enacting this provision 
     could decrease the amount authorized to be appropriated from 
     the AATF.
       Beginning with the President's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2003, title X would adjust the upcoming fiscal year's 
     FAA authorizations based on the difference between estimated 
     and actual receipts to the AATF in the most recently 
     completed year. Title X provides that when the President 
     submits a budget for a fiscal year, the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall calculate and the budget shall report the 
     extent to which the actual receipts (including interest) 
     deposited to the AATF for the base year (that is, the most 
     recently completed fiscal year) were greater or less than the 
     estimated deposits specified in H.R. 1000 for the base year.
       If there is a difference between the estimated and actual 
     deposits in the base year, then title X provides that the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated in the upcoming fiscal 
     year for FAA operations, facilities and equipment, research 
     and development, and airport improvement shall be adjusted 
     proportionately such that the total adjustments equal the 
     revenue difference.
       Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
     Overall, H.R. 1000 would provide significant benefits to 
     airports operated by state and local governments. It also 
     would impose two small mandates on state governments, but CBO 
     estimates the cost of complying with these mandates would not 
     be significant and would not meet the threshold established 
     by UMRA ($50 million in 1996, adjusted annually for 
     inflation).
     Mandates
       Section 401 of the bill would prohibit a state or local 
     government from preventing people associated with disaster 
     counseling services who are not licensed in that state from 
     providing those services for up to 60 days after an aviation 
     accident. Section 402 of the bill would expand a current 
     preemption of state liability laws by limiting the liability 
     of air carriers that provide information concerning flight 
     reservations to the families of passengers involved in 
     airline accidents. Air carriers are already provided immunity 
     from state liability laws for providing passenger lists under 
     these circumstances. Because neither mandate would require 
     state or local governments to expend funds or to change their 
     laws, CBO estimates that any costs associated with these 
     mandates would be insignificant.
     Other impacts
       H.R. 1000 would authorize $19.2 billion in contract 
     authority for the AIP for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, an 
     increase of more than $7 billion over CBO's March baseline 
     for

[[Page 12267]]

     that period. Because the AIP provides grants to fund capital 
     improvement and planning projects for more than 3,300 of the 
     nation's state and locally operated commercial airports and 
     general aviation facilities, those airports could realize 
     significant benefits from this increase.
       The bill also would expand the uses and change the 
     distribution of AIP funds. For instance, it would increase 
     from $500,000 to $1.5 million the minimum amount of money 
     going to each of the nation's 428 primary airports from the 
     entitlement portion of the AIP. (Primary airports board more 
     than 10,000 passengers each year.) These funds are 
     distributed based on the number of passengers boarding at an 
     airport. The amount of money received per passenger would be 
     significantly increased, and the current $22 million cap 
     would be eliminated. The bill would also allow non-primary 
     and reliever airports to receive up to $200,000 in 
     entitlement funds per eligible airport. (Non-primary airports 
     board between 2,500 and 10,000 passengers each year; reliever 
     airports are designated by the FAA to relieve congested 
     primary airports.)
       Under this bill, eligible airports, under certain 
     circumstances, would be able to increase passenger facility 
     charges (PFCs) to $6 from the current $3 limit. Based on 
     information from the General Accounting Office and the FAA, 
     CBO estimates that if all airports currently charging PFCs 
     chose to increase them, revenues would total about $475 
     million for every $1 increase in the fee. The revenue 
     generated from increased PFCs could be used to leverage tax-
     exempt bonds for airport projects. The bill also would 
     increase to 25 the number of airports eligible to participate 
     in an innovative financing pilot program. Under this program, 
     eligible airports could use AIP funds to leverage new 
     investment financed by additional tax-exempt debt.
       Title II of the bill would deregulate the number and timing 
     of takeoffs and landings (slots) at La Guardia Airport, 
     Chicago O'Hare International Airport, and John F. Kennedy 
     International Airport, effective March 1, 2000. Title II also 
     would increase the number of slots available at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport by six, subject to certain 
     criteria. In general, as a condition of receiving money from 
     the AIP, airports must agree to provide gate access, if 
     available, to air carriers granted access to a slot. Based on 
     information from the affected airports, CBO estimates that 
     the increase in slots would have an insignificant impact on 
     their budgets.
       Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1000 would 
     impose new mandates by requiring safety equipment for 
     specific aircraft, imposing consumer and employee protection 
     provisions, and imposing new requirements for commercial air 
     tour operations over national parks. Those mandates would 
     affect owners of fixed-wing aircraft, air carriers, end-users 
     of aircraft parts, commercial air tour operators, and cargo 
     aircraft owners and operators. CBO estimates that the total 
     direct costs of the mandates would not exceed the annual 
     threshold for private-sector mandates ($100 million in 1996, 
     adjusted for inflation).
     Owners of fixed-wing powered aircraft
       Section 510 would require the installation of emergency 
     locator transmitters on certain types of fixed-wing, powered 
     civil aircraft. It would do this by eliminating certain uses 
     from the list of those currently excluded from that 
     requirement. Most aircraft that would lose their exemption 
     and currently do not have emergency locator transmitters are 
     general aviation aircraft. According to information from the 
     National Air Transportation Association, the trade 
     association representing general aviation, the cot of 
     acquiring and installing an emergency locator transmitter 
     would range from $2,000 to $7,000 depending on the type of 
     aircraft. CBO estimates that fewer than 5,000 aircraft would 
     be affected, and that the cost of this mandate would be 
     between $15 million and $30 million.
     Air carriers
       Sections 402 and 403 would add new requirements to the 
     plans to address the needs of families of passengers involved 
     in aircraft accidents. Currently both domestic air carriers 
     that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
     and foreign air carriers that use the United States as a 
     point of embarkation, destination, or stopover are required 
     to submit and comply with those plans. This bill would 
     require that as part of those plans air carriers give 
     assurance that they would provide adequate training to their 
     employees and agents to meet the needs of survivors and 
     family members following an accident. In addition, domestic 
     air carriers would be required to provide assurance that, if 
     requested by a passenger's family, the air carrier would 
     inform them whether the passenger's name appeared on the 
     preliminary manifest. Updated plans would have to be 
     submitted to the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman 
     of the National Transportation Safety Board on or before the 
     180th day following enactment.
       The bill does not specify what level of training would be 
     adequate for air carriers to be able to provide required 
     assurance. Based on information from representatives of air 
     carriers, CBO concludes that the major domestic and foreign 
     air carriers and some smaller carriers currently provide 
     training to deal with the needs of survivors and family 
     members following an accident. In addition, the domestic 
     carriers provide flight reservation information upon request, 
     as would be required under H.R. 1000. CBO estimates that the 
     cost of meeting the additional requirements would be small.
       Section 601 would protect employees of air carriers or 
     contractors or subcontractors if those employees provide air 
     safety information to the U.S. government. Those firms would 
     not be able to discharge or discriminate against such 
     employees with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or 
     privileges of employment. Based on information provided by 
     one of the major air carriers and the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, the agency that would enforce those 
     provisions, CBO estimates that neither the air carriers nor 
     their contractors would incur any direct costs in complying 
     with this requirement.
       Section 727 would grant the FAA the authority to request 
     from U.S. air carriers information about the stations located 
     in the United States that they use to repair contract and 
     noncontract aircraft and aviation components. CBO expects 
     that the FAA would request such information. Based on 
     information from the FAA and air carriers, CBO anticipates 
     that the carriers would be able to provide the information 
     easily because it would be readily available and that any 
     costs of doing so would be negligible.
     End users of life-limited aircraft parts
       Section 507 would require the safe disposition of parts 
     with a limited useful life, once they are removed from an 
     aircraft. The FAA would issue regulations providing five 
     options for the disposition of such parts. The segregation of 
     those parts to preclude their installation in aircraft is one 
     option. Information from end users of such aircraft parts 
     indicates that most currently segregate those parts before 
     they reach the end of their useful life. CBO estimates that 
     additional costs imposed by this mandate would be small since 
     the end users would choose the most cost-effective method to 
     safely dispose of such parts and most currently comply with 
     the segregation option.
     Commercial air tour operations
       Title VIII would require operators of commercial air tours 
     to apply for authority from the FAA before coducting tours 
     over national parks or tribal lands within or abutting a 
     national park. The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, would 
     devise air tour management plans for every park where an air 
     tour operator flies or seeks authority to fly. The management 
     plans would affect all commercial air tour operations up to a 
     half-mile outside each national park boundary. The plans 
     could prohibit commercial air tour operations in whole or in 
     part and could establish conditions for operation, such as 
     maximum and minimum altitudes, the maximum number of flights, 
     and time-of-day restrictions. H.R. 1000 would not apply to 
     tour operations over the Grand Canyon or Alaska. Those 
     operations would be covered by other regulations.
       CBO estimates that title VIII would impose no additional 
     costs on the private sector beyond those that are likely to 
     be imposed by FAA regulations under current law. CBO expects 
     that the cost of applying to the FAA for authority to operate 
     commercial air tours over national parks or tribal lands 
     would be negligible.
     Cargo aircraft owners and operators
       Section 501 would mandate that a collision avoidance system 
     be installed on each cargo aircraft with a maximum certified 
     takeoff weight in excess 15,000 kilograms or more by December 
     31, 2002. Cargo industry representatives say they are 
     currently developing a collision avoidance system using new 
     technology and expect it to be installed in such cargo 
     aircraft by the deadline, even if no legislation is enacted. 
     CBO estimates that this mandate would impose no additional 
     costs on owners and operators of cargo aircraft.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria Heid Hall, 
     for FAA provisions and NPS overflights; Christina Hawley 
     Sadoti, for DOL penalties; Hester Grippando, for FAA 
     penalties. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
     Lisa Cash Driskill. Impact on the Private Sector: Jean 
     Wooster.
       Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

                          ____________________