[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12837-12891]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 206

       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. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill 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. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No further amendment to that amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report are waived. 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 (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule 
for H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and

[[Page 12838]]

Reform Act for the 21st Century, or Air 21.
  The rule provides for one hour of general debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an 
original bill for the purpose of an amendment, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying the resolution.
  Additionally, the rule makes in order only those amendments printed 
in part B of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  The rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report and shall be considered as read; shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and opponent; shall not be subject to an 
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Further, this rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill, against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report.
  In addition, the rule allows for the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, after their historic flight in Kitty Hawk, North 
Carolina, Orville and Wilbur Wright cabled home a simple dispatch to 
their father, the Reverend Milton Wright. They spoke of the success of 
their four flights and finished the telegram with a simple 
pronouncement: ``Inform press, home Christmas.''
  Of course, that may have been the last time two air travelers were 
that confident they would be home by Christmas.
  Much has changed in the 96 years since the Wright brothers sent that 
telegram and much more needs to be changed to ensure safety at our 
airports and fairness in the airline industry.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the reauthorization of the 
Federal Aviation Administration and the air improvement program. It 
seeks to address many of the problems burdening our aviation system by 
making our airports and skies safer, by injecting immediate competition 
into the airline industry. The bill also addresses many safety concerns 
by ensuring that the FAA has adequate funding to hire and retrain air 
traffic controllers, maintenance technicians and safety inspectors 
needed to ensure the safety of the aviation system.
  It provides the resources for the FAA to modernize their antiquated 
air traffic control system. In addition, the bill provides 
whistleblower protection for both FAA and airline employees so they can 
reveal legitimate safety problems without fear of retaliation.
  Mr. Speaker, the safety of our skies and of our citizens must remain 
a paramount concern of this Congress and clearly this bill addresses 
those needs and concerns, but there is another issue in this 
reauthorization that means much to consumers, economic development and 
job growth across our Nation, and that is the issue of increasing 
competition and making air travel more affordable to more Americans.
  In my own district in upstate New York, the high cost of air travel 
has been a tremendous concern in cities such as Buffalo, Rochester and 
Syracuse.

                              {time}  1245

  Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to submit testimony to 
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, asking for his intervention in 
making adjustments to the slot process, which controls the take-off and 
landing rights at our Nation's busiest airports, to encourage airline 
competition and lower airfare costs.
  Airline customers in my community still pay some of the highest 
airfares in the Nation. In fact, in Rochester, New York, air travelers 
pay the fourth highest airfares in the United States. This is not only 
a tremendous burden for leisure travelers, it is a direct impediment to 
economic growth and job creation.
  Business travelers account for more than 70 percent of Rochester's 
flying public. They are also burdened with some of the highest-priced 
airfares. A published report noted that a last-minute round-trip 
airfare from Rochester to Chicago would cost nearly $1,100 on U.S. 
Airways. That same ticket from Baltimore would cost only $242.
  This bill addresses much of that concern by setting a dated 
elimination of slot restrictions at O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy 
airports and, equally important, making additional slots available for 
new airlines.
  Making slots available to regional jet service providers will ensure 
that this Congress does what is needed to inject much-needed 
competition into the airline industry.
  This legislation does much to increase competition with the clear 
goal of lowering the cost of air travel for the American people.
  I would also encourage Secretary Slater to continue to use the power 
of his office to further identify other creative ways to help increase 
competition in the airline industry.
  Representing a number of smaller, general aviation airports in need 
of improvement, I am pleased that this bill addresses many of the 
hurdles small airports face in trying to serve their specialized 
markets with commercial and private aircraft.
  In addition, H.R. 1000 allows the States to control Airport 
Improvement Program grants to small airports. Under this provision, the 
State, not the FAA, will determine which general aviation airports are 
eligible for Federal funds.
  Additionally, the bill requires medium and large hub airports to file 
a competition plan so that the resources can be directed to those 
projects that will do the most to enhance competition.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
ranking member, for their hard work on this measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for a structured rule, which makes 
in order only those amendments printed in the rules report accompanying 
the resolution. These restrictions are totally unnecessary and limit 
the full debate on what is a most important issue. I would note once 
more that the open rule best protects all Members' rights to fully 
represent their constituents.
  The underlying bill we are considering attempts to ensure that 
America's aviation system remains safe and competitive as we enter the 
21st century. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more critical to the 
economic well-being of our Nation. Our aviation system was once the 
envy of the world. Now many communities find themselves cut off from 
the booming economy as a result of their inability to move their goods 
and services and people where they need to go.
  This problem has enormous economic implications for certain regions 
of the country, including my own. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear 
vigorous floor debate on a variety of issues but we know this: economic 
development cannot occur without affordable, accessible air 
transportation.
  My district of Rochester, New York, is the largest per capita 
exporting district in the United States. This region

[[Page 12839]]

exports more goods than all but nine States. Indeed, we are among the 
top 10 exporting areas in the entire country. Last year, 1.2 million 
people flew out of our airport.
  The 28th District of New York is the proud birthplace of a number of 
Fortune 500 companies, such as Eastman Kodak, Xerox Corporation, Bausch 
and Lomb, making it the world's image center. Of equal importance are 
the hundreds of small and mid-sized high-technology firms that have 
been growing in the region over the last several years. Indeed, these 
companies are now critical to the lifeblood of our community.
  But that continued success is by no means certain. Many firms or 
businesses are either moving out or choosing to expand in other regions 
of the country. The reason? Exorbitant airfares and the inability to 
get a decent flight schedule.
  Last year we learned that Eastman Kodak plans to move the marketing 
headquarters to Atlanta because of cheaper and more frequent flights 
out of Atlanta's airport. That effect on our area's smaller companies 
is equally pronounced. A relatively young and growing Rochester-based 
firm recently wrote me that high fares to and from Rochester are the 
primary reason it froze professional positions in its local office, 
opting instead to expand its mid-Atlantic offices.
  Rochester is like many mid-sized communities that got left out of the 
benefits promised by deregulation. To be blunt, deregulation failed us. 
During the 1980s, 13 air carriers served our region, affording 
consumers choices and creating a competitive environment that produced 
reasonable fares. Now one dominant carrier and four additional carriers 
effectively serve our region, but not effectively. They barely serve 
us. My constituents pay the second highest airfares in the United 
States, second only to Richmond, Virginia.
  The major airline carriers have clipped the wings of any would-be 
start-up carriers. While more than one carrier may service our region, 
they do not compete among themselves on most routes. For example, let 
me say that competition is not the answer, because we have two airlines 
that will take persons from Rochester, New York, to Chicago round trip, 
but both airlines charge $1,267, to the penny, very same price. The 
result has been the creation of de facto monopolies on individual 
routes that are gouging business people and consumers when they fly.
  Congress can and must level the playing field for start-up air 
carriers so that they can compete with the major carriers. The low-cost 
airlines formed after deregulation are the primary source of price 
competition in other areas of the country. When they enter the market, 
these airlines force the big carriers to reduce fares. Without the 
pressure from the bargain airlines, the large competitors charge the 
consumers exorbitant prices. In fact, we are fairly certain that, if 
one lives in an area where one's airfares are reasonable, the people of 
Rochester, New York, are helping to subsidize that.
  Two years ago, I pledged to my constituents to confront this problem 
head on. I authored legislation calling on the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Justice to get tough on the 
predatory behavior of major carriers. I have testified numerous times 
before both House and Senate colleagues, and we had hearings last 
February with the Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater on the high 
cost of airfares.
  The major carriers attacked my efforts claiming I was addressing a 
nonexisting problem. This was no small attack because the carriers had 
spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, on law firms, public relations 
firms, and focus groups. Fortunately, the flying public has not been 
fooled, and the drumbeat for greater action from their leaders 
continues, and we have been successful.
  As I stand here today, the Department of Justice has launched a full 
antitrust investigation into the behavior of the major carriers. The 
Department of Transportation, for the first time in 20 years, drafted 
comprehensive guidelines to prevent anticompetitive behavior.
  But, Mr. Speaker, just recently four major airlines raised their 
prices over a weekend together. In the old days, we used to call that 
collusion. Now it is simply called free enterprise. Thirty-six States' 
attorneys general are pressing their State courts into action, and the 
full House, the full Senate and administration are all moving forward 
with comprehensive measures to tackle the problem.
  My bill, the Airline Competition and Lower Fares Act, includes 
measures to address the distribution of landing and take-off rights at 
airports, known as slots, and the predatory practices of the major 
carriers. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
and the ranking member for including provisions in AIR 21 to address 
the slot issue.
  Slots are critical to this debate. Currently the major carriers have 
a stranglehold on the slots, effectively preventing low-cost carriers 
from entering the market. In the 18 years since airline deregulation, 
major airlines have increased their grips on the access to slots at the 
major airports.
  At four airports in the country, LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports in 
New York, O'Hare Airport in Chicago, and National Airport near 
Washington, D.C., the dominant airlines use their control of slots to 
squeeze out the smaller carriers, and consumers are getting crushed in 
the process.
  Deregulation of the airline industry increased the demand for slots 
at these airports. The DOT, I think, out of a moment of sheer madness, 
gave permission to the major airlines to use these slots as their 
personal property. They did, however, retain those slots as the 
property of the people of the United States.
  However, the major airlines have been allowed to buy and sell them to 
each other, to use them as collateral for loans; and we must stop that. 
As many as one slot, if an airline decides to rent it to another 
smaller start-up airline, can cost as much as $2 million a year during 
peak hours. That is money they are making off of our landing rights, 
Mr. Speaker. Few start-up companies can overcome such a financial 
barrier to enter the market.
  When the slots were first distributed, it was made clear that they 
were government property, and we retain the right to reclaim them; and 
the time for that is now.
  We heard testimony at the Committee on Rules yesterday to the effect 
that the elimination of the slot rule would pose a threat to safety. 
Mr. Speaker, this is not true. In testimony before the House 
Subcommittee on Aviation, the top officials of the Department of 
Transportation refuted this notion. Indeed, when asked directly by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member, whether any 
safety reasons existed that would warrant maintaining the current slot 
system, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey issued an emphatic no.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the slot control density was a safety issue, 
there are several airports in the United States that are far more used 
and more dense than the four airports that are slot-controlled. If it 
were safety, one may believe that the Atlanta airport, for one, would 
be one of those recommended. It is not a safety issue.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
and the ranking member for tackling the problem. Last fall, the 
``Economist'' magazine, surely a publication with capitalist 
credentials in order, noted that ``if passengers are to benefit fully 
from airline deregulation, they also need to be protected from what 
could all too easily turn into just another bunch of price-gouging 
cartels.''
  I could not agree more. There may have been benefits promised by 
deregulation, but we do not have them. Without effective competition in 
this market, businesses and consumers cannot get a fair shake. AIR 21 
will provide additional airport capacity and help to improve large and 
small airports to ensure that we have fair competition in an industry 
where individual air carriers have market dominance over many 
communities.

[[Page 12840]]

  Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to say again that we found out 
last year, when Northwest Airline employees went on strike, that they 
left whole States in the Northwestern United States without service.
  Mr. Speaker, while I will not call for a recorded vote, I do say that 
we will have a vigorous debate on this bill before it is over.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this very reasonable and appropriate rule. I 
honestly believe that it should lead to full opportunity for debate on 
many relevant issues that we heard on this subject yesterday before the 
Committee on Rules, matters that were brought to our attention by 
Members of the appropriate committee.
  I commend the bipartisan work of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) in bringing the House this comprehensive authorization 
bill for our Nation's airports and critical aviation needs.
  We have all been reading about the horror stories when things go 
wrong in aviation, and I am not just talking about the tragic 
accidents, I am talking about the passenger inconvenience from 
overcrowding and management problems.
  Every single Member in this House wants to ensure that our airports 
are ready to move into the next century before it gets here, and it is 
hard upon us. My district encompasses one of the fastest growing parts 
of the Nation, an area that also happens to be one of the country's 
most desired vacation spots, and I cordially invite anybody to visit 
southwest Florida.
  As a result, southwest Floridians certainly understand the importance 
of continuing to invest wisely in our aviation system. That need is 
even more acute now that we have gone global in southwest Florida and 
other parts of our country with free trade zone designation that is 
promoting world-class business and economic development throughout our 
entire region, and obviously of great importance, our economic well-
being of our Nation.
  All of this good news, though, is contingent upon an airport system 
that works, and it has got to work well and better than it is working 
now. At our peak in March, our area airports handled more than 800,000 
passengers. The biggest of our airports in southwest Florida, Southwest 
Florida International, is a model for the entire Nation on how to stay 
ahead of growth and meet demand without jeopardizing safety or 
efficiency.

                              {time}  1300

  And I want to publicly congratulate the individuals involved in the 
management of that airport and the policies of that airport.
  The next big project they have for that airport is the construction 
of a new midfield terminal, the result of yet another successful 
Federal-local partnership. And I am grateful to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and people like that who have recognized needs and given 
attention to needy situations.
  Suffice it to say in my part of Florida we are positive witnesses on 
the importance of passenger air travel and, of course, air cargo. 
However, Mr. Speaker, we also know there is no free lunch. When it 
comes to using taxpayer money we have to find out where it is coming 
from. We have to balance our priorities and understand the trade-offs, 
and that means we cannot over- promise. I am concerned that this bill, 
for all of its merits in supporting vital infrastructure, may be 
raising expectations just a trifle too high.
  Specifically, the bill makes a technical change to the Federal budget 
process that has far-reaching consequences. The argument here is not 
about whether we are going to provide proper funding for our airports 
and aviation safety. That is a given. Rather it is about how we make 
that happen and whether we unnecessarily tie our own hands for future 
spending decisions.
  This bill seeks to wall off the Aviation Trust Fund from the rest of 
the budget, a precedent that could lead us down the road of even less 
fiscal control than we have today and, obviously, would be of concern. 
One of the primary reasons that we have been able to achieve this 
remarkable era of budget surplus is that we have examined the Federal 
budget as a whole and made tough decisions about living within our 
means. I oppose creating separate budget entities for airport 
expenditures, or just about anything else, because they are not subject 
to the same overall control.
  Our colleagues will have the chance later in this debate to consider 
an amendment to strip H.R. 1000 of that technical language and restore 
the proper balance between deciding on national priorities and 
allocating the money to foot the bill. I hope Members will support that 
amendment.
  In the meantime, I urge support for this appropriate rule so we can 
get to that debate and again I congratulate the managers of the bill, 
the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, for their hard work in bringing something forward 
that is timely and necessary for the well-being of our Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the bill, AIR 21, the Aviation Improvement Act for the 21st 
century.
  As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
and a Member whose district is just minutes from our international 
border with Mexico, I know that the path to the 21st century is about 
more than just ground transportation on America's roads, rails and 
bridges. And as a Member whose district is also on the Pacific Rim, I 
know that today the path to the 21st century is also very much about 
the aviation system in our Nation's airways.
  Because of that, I firmly believe that this legislation is more than 
a transportation bill and more than an aviation bill. Like its sister 
bill TEA 21, this legislation is a job creator, a winged engine for the 
Nation's trading economy and a critical tool for the economic 
development of my own Congressional District.
  The enhanced aviation infrastructure and updated air traffic control 
system that this provides will improve our ability to more efficiently 
and effectively move people and goods. By removing delays caused by an 
aging and crumbling infrastructure and an inadequate air traffic 
control system, we will be better able to continue to grow the economy 
and shrink our global community.
  Despite arguments to the contrary, this legislation is also about 
fiscal responsibility and accountability. We Americans are taxed when 
we fly. We are told that those taxes will go to fund our aviation 
infrastructure. What we are not told is that in reality our tax dollars 
are allowed to accumulate vast balances that are used by bureaucrats in 
a classic Washington shell game of hide-the-budget deficit. Americans 
pay aviation taxes for aviation infrastructure. It is time we instill 
some discipline into the Federal budget and spend these funds for their 
intended purpose. This bill will finally restore the trust the American 
people place in this account.
  I believe AIR 21's increased investment in our aviation 
infrastructure is desperately needed at this time. America's investment 
in its transportation infrastructure has helped create the strongest 
economy in the history of the world. It invigorates the Nation's 
productive power, creates new jobs and raises revenues. This investment 
in transportation today boosts the economy and creates jobs today, 
tomorrow, and for years to come.
  Madam Speaker, I will vote for my constituents' job interests and for 
the

[[Page 12841]]

Nation's economic interests today and vote for this critical 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding me this time, and I want to rise today in support 
of this rule.
  I want to talk about a contentious issue for which we will be 
debating at great length throughout consideration of AIR 21, and that 
is the passenger facility charge. In 1990, Congress responded to 
concerns that the aviation trust funds and other existing sources of 
funds for airport development were insufficient to meet national needs 
by creating the PFC.
  The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 allowed 
designated commercial airports the option of imposing a PFC on each 
passenger boarding an aircraft at the airport. PFCs are not Federal 
taxes. Rather, PFCs can be viewed as local taxes that require Federal 
approval.
  Unlike Federal airport improvement program funds, AIP, PFC monies can 
be used for a wide range of projects and can also used for debt service 
and related expenses. As a result of this broad project eligibility, 
PFC funds are more likely to be spent on landside activity, such as 
terminal development, road construction, and debt service.
  The PFC system has been enormously popular with airports. According 
to some estimates, the FAA has already approved PFC collections in 
excess of $18.5 billion. This large and growing source of airport 
funding is also viewed by many observers as a way to fund needed 
airport improvements without raising Federal Aviation taxes.
  It is clear, however, that there are some concerns by many Members of 
Congress with respect to legislative intent. It is clear that 
additional capacity was a major goal of the authors of this 
legislation. What is less clear is how capacity is defined. As 
suggested in previous announcements, the Federal Aviation 
Administration has taken a broad view of the types of airport projects 
eligible for PFC funding.
  It has been suggested by critics of several PFC projects that the FAA 
view is overly broad and that a redefinition of capacity would be 
appropriate and appropriate in AIR 21. This issue, generally referred 
to as an appropriate use issue, will be discussed in great detail in 
today's debate.
  The single most controversial issue associated with PFCs has been the 
issue of appropriate use. Recent FAA approval of PFC funding for a $1.5 
billion light rail system connecting JFK Airport with New York's subway 
system has raised the visibility of appropriate use. Recent testimony 
before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure indicates that airlines are still 
very opposed to this project and other types of projects that airports 
wish to undertake using PFC funds on the site of airports and not off 
site from airports.
  The city of Chicago has chosen to use much of its PFC income to 
undertake large terminal-related projects. These terminal improvements 
are largely aimed at upgrading existing infrastructure as opposed to 
creating new infrastructure. The first terminal upgrades are aiding 
incumbent carriers. That is, the gates and terminal space being 
rehabilitated will already be under control of an air carrier. As a 
result, the space is unlikely to be available to new air carriers who 
might provide new and competitive services at the airport.
  Second, this type of project has been historically subject to bond 
financing. In this historical financing framework, the airports would 
have to work with the incumbent air carrier to create new or improved 
terminal capacity by using its landing or other fees to support the 
bonds financing. Unfortunately, PFCs are acting as a subsidy for 
existing carriers and are not consistent with Congress' legislative 
intent to enhance competition amongst the carriers, which we will 
discuss in great measure.
  The failure to concentrate PFC funds on the airside improvements is 
having the effect of increasing existing congestion in the air traffic 
control system. In this view, using PFC funds to build new airports, 
such as DIA and perhaps, even in my own district, Peotone, Illinois, 
has the effect of reducing ATC congestion at major transportation hubs. 
New runways, new taxiways, even at existing airports, are also seen as 
enhancing ATC capacity in an area and in a way that new terminals and 
parking loss indeed cannot.
  On the issue of competition, by choosing not to spend money on new 
air site capacity and gates for potential new competitors, some 
airports seem to be working to maintain the status quo, thereby 
benefiting incumbent air carriers. Just this past Friday, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) sat on the runway at Reagan 
National Airport for 5 hours, not because there were not enough 
terminals at Chicago at its airport, not because there were not enough 
parking lots at Chicago at its airport, she sat on the runway because 
of bad weather at the airport and had nowhere else to go.
  In the future, Chicago's airports will have to lengthen their runways 
from their present lengths, expand space between runways and taxiways 
so that generation and series 4, 5 and 6 aircraft will be able to land 
at those airports and, indeed, enhance competition amongst the 
carriers.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing this debate and offering 
several corrective amendments to this bill to make Congress' intent a 
reality.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to say that I rise in strong support of this 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to comment upon a few statements made by 
my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) 
as it pertains principally to the Jackson-Hyde amendment which we will 
be dealing with later on today.
  First of all, PFCs are collected locally and spent locally. The 
Jackson-Hyde amendment is an unprecedented attack on local authority. 
The law establishing the PFC clearly states that only FAA-recognized 
airports or airport authorities can collect and distribute PFC revenue.
  The city of Chicago is the airport authority for both O'Hare Airport 
and Midway Airport. The Illinois Department of Transportation, the 
beneficiary of the Jackson-Hyde amendment, has tried before to grant 
the PFC revenue collected by the city of Chicago. In that case the U.S. 
Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, ruled that the Illinois Department of 
Transportation had no rights to the revenues collected by the city of 
Chicago.
  In fact, the court stated that PFC revenues belonged to the agency 
levying the charges, in this case the city of Chicago. They do not 
belong to the Illinois Department of Transportation or any other organ 
of the State. The Illinois Department of Transportation controls 
neither the airports, which are controlled by a municipal authority, 
the city of Chicago, nor the airspace, a Federal responsibility. The 
Hyde-Jackson amendment would set a precedent allowing entities that do 
not participate in the operations of airports to benefit from the PFC 
revenue.
  It is airport operators, not State agencies, that know how to best 
use scarce aviation funds. The city of Chicago has wisely used its PFC 
revenues to address pressing airport needs. As is required by law, PFC 
revenues collected by the city of Chicago have only been used on 
projects approved by the FAA.
  The city of Chicago began collecting PFCs in 1992, and since that 
time has had FAA approval for more than well over $700 million to 
rehabilitate and improve existing runways and taxiways, and more than 
$300 million to soundproof schools and homes surrounding O'Hare and 
Midway Airport.
  I would like to run that by my colleagues once again. There has been 
$300 million from the PFCs set aside to soundproof schools and homes 
surrounding O'Hare and Midway Airport.

[[Page 12842]]

  The city of Chicago also used PFC funds to build shared- or common-
use gates that ensure access for any carrier wishing to serve the 
airport. This has helped foster competition at both O'Hare and Midway 
Airport and is a very important ingredient in this debate.

                              {time}  1315

  Midway Airport is beginning a $762 million development program to 
replace the 50-year-old terminal at the airport. Midway Airport has an 
airfield that can accommodate as many as 8.5 million enplanements.
  Unfortunately, the terminal was built and later renovated to 
accommodate only 1.1 million annual passengers. By improving the 
terminal building, Midway will be able to utilize its operational 
capacity.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) when he spoke here a few 
minutes ago on the rule mentioned that neither O'Hare nor Midway will 
be able to accommodate the soon-to-be-built new generation of larger 
``series 6'' aircraft.
  O'Hare's main runways range from 13,000 feet to 10,000 feet and can 
easily accommodate today's largest aircraft. The Boeing 747-400 and the 
777 all fly into and out of O'Hare on a regular basis. Midway's largest 
runway is 6,500 feet and Boeing's 757-200s regularly fly in and out of 
Midway.
  In fact, ATA Airlines has started the one-stop service to Ireland 
using the 757-200; and once customs facilities are constructed at 
Midway, they will begin nonstop international service.
  In conclusion, I would simply say, in Governor Ryan's inaugural 
address, he made mention of the fact that the State of Illinois wanted 
no PFC money from O'Hare Airport or Midway Airport to build Piatone.
  The problem with accommodating larger aircraft is not a matter of 
runway capacity, but rather gate capacity. Most airport gates are not 
built wide enough to accommodate the bigger aircraft. Fortunately, the 
City of Chicago is planning on using PFC revenues to build 2 new 
terminals at O'Hare that will be able to accommodate the larger 
aircraft being built today.
  The City of Chicago is not using PFC revenue as Congress intended. 
Once again, the City of Chicago has used PFC revenue on FAA approved 
projects only. Each project in some way enhanced safety or capacity, 
reduced noise, or enhanced competition as the law directs. Study the 
list of projects for yourself.
  Listed below are capacity improvements that have been made at both 
O'Hare and Midway. Any taxiway and hold pad improvements are designed 
to eliminate ground congestion and delays. O'Hare has seen a 40% 
reduction in delays during the past decade, much of this is 
attributable to the reduction of ground congestion. The other projects 
maintain the operational capacity of the airports.

                      O'Hare International Airport

$6.8 million on Runway 27L hold pad (April-October 1993)
$3.1 million to rehabilitate Runway 4R/22L (June-December 1993)
$10 million to rehabilitate Runway 9R/27L (March-August 1996)
$8.8 million on shoulder and edge lighting on Runway 14L/32R (June-
    November 1996)
$26 million on new north airfield hold pad (July '94-April '97)
$3.3 on Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) lighting panel (June '95-
    August '97)
$7.9 million to rehabilitate Runway 4L/22R (July-November 1997)
$14.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 14R/32L (May-December 1997)
$12.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 9R/27L (September '97-September 
    '98)
$1.7 million to rehabilitate Runway 4R/22L (May-October 1998)
$11.7 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 14L/32R (April-December 1998)
$9.9 million to rehabilitate Taxiway 4R/22L (June-December 1998)
$5.5 million for terminal apron pavement rehabilitation (June '98-
    December '01)

                       Projects at Midway Airport

$4.3 million to rehabilitate Runway 4L/22R (June-December 1995)
$900 thousand to rehabilitate Runway 13L/31R (May-November 1996)
$421 thousand on airfield lighting control panel (August '96-July '98)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I find that probably nothing is more confusing to our 
fellow Members and to the audience at large as when we talk about slots 
and density control. And I would like to take just a few moments if I 
may to try to give my colleagues my view of what this discussion is 
really about.
  As we know, there are four airports in the United States that are 
density controlled. And there are many more airports in the United 
States, notably, Los Angeles and Atlanta, that have far more traffic 
than the density controlled airports.
  Safety is not the issue. The issue is simply this: It is important to 
note that a slot is not a gate. ``Slot'' is the term used for landing 
and takeoff at airports. And what the United States has done now is 
allow four airports in the United States to have nothing to say about 
it but the major airlines controlling who gets to land and who gets to 
takeoff. Because the slots, the landing rights of those airports, is in 
the hands of the major air carriers.
  If a start-up airline wants to rent a slot or lease a slot from one 
of the carriers, as I pointed out earlier, it could cost them up to $2 
million a year and they may be given the right to land at 2 a.m., and 
they may also be required to use the reservation system of the major 
airline, and they may also be required to use the ground crew of the 
major airline, which are some of the reasons why many start-up airlines 
never survive at all.
  So what we are doing, if we let density stay at these four airports, 
do not lift the density, we are simply continuing the system of letting 
the major airlines determine who flies in and out of those four 
airports. It is important to understand that it is their control.
  As I said earlier, they buy and sell them to each other, they lease 
them out to other airlines, and they use them as collateral for loans. 
The most important point I want to make is that that does not belong to 
them. Because even when they were given the right to control, the 
retention of the slots, the landing rights, were retained by the 
American people with the right to he reclaim them. And that is what 
needs to be done in this bill. It needs to be done now.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Morella 
amendment today that retains density. Because they are not helping an 
airport, they are continuing a monopoly situation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague and neighbor, the 
gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  If I had my way to write this bill, I would not have slots in it, no 
slots, any airport. I would have the free market based on the fact that 
my belief is that no slots would offer an opportunity to reduce the air 
fares in Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse.
  However, this is a body of compromise. And some representatives from 
the New York City area representing LaGuardia and Kennedy, all 
Democratic minority members I might point out, work to suppress 
additional slots for areas like Upstate New York, Buffalo, Rochester, 
and Syracuse. And it was soon compromised by the chairman of the 
committee that a negotiated solution provided opportunities for new and 
additional regional jet service from New York City to airports like 
Upstate New York.
  It is an important first step. It is not the last step. It is not a 
final solution. It is a compromise. It is a beginning first step. I 
urge more discussion, more ideas to come forward not only from this 
great body of the Congress but from the administration, the Secretary 
of Transportation, and the industry on

[[Page 12843]]

what we can do to lower airfares and bring great competition to all of 
our airports in America.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206 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. 1000.

                              {time}  1321


                     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. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize 
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Bonilla 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 recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an historic moment in the House because we are 
considering legislation which will have a major impact on the future of 
nearly every American in the years to come.
  Make no mistake about it, our aviation system in America today is 
hurdling toward gridlock and potential catastrophies in the sky. In 
fact, we have gone since airline deregulation from 230 million 
passengers flying commercially in America each year to 600 million last 
year, 660 million projected for this year. And in the first decade of 
the next century, we will have over a billion, with a ``B'', people 
flying commercially in America.
  Beyond that, air cargo is skyrocketing. In the past 10 years, we have 
had a 74-percent increase in air cargo and it is escalating at even a 
steeper rate today. We are told that in the next 5 years there will be 
a 30-percent increase in planes over our 100 largest airports and, get 
this, a 50-percent increase in commercial jets in our skies.
  Delays have increased to the point that our top 27 airports in 
America each are experiencing well over 20,000 hours of airplane delay 
a year. And it is getting worse, not better. In fact, it is projected 
that the airlines are losing $2.4 billion a year as a result of the 
delays and it is costing the American people $8 billion a year in 
delays.
  That does not really tell the whole story, by a long shot. Why? 
Because delays are so prevalent, the airlines are building delays into 
their schedules. For example, a flight from Washington to LaGuardia 
takes 45 minutes, but the airlines are showing it as a one-hour flight 
because they are building in the delay. So those delays are not even 
calculated. Delays are increasing. Customer satisfaction, airline 
passengers are very, very upset.
  From this April to last April, there has been an 87-percent increase 
in passenger complaints down at the FAA. As far as safety is concerned, 
while we have today still the safest aviation system in the world, it 
is not going to stay that way if we have 30 to 50 percent more planes 
in the sky.
  In fact, with the tragedy that occurred out in Little Rock just a few 
weeks ago, they did not have a Dopler radar system, which would have 
warned them in advance of the problems they were having with weather. 
They have requests in for runway extensions, requests in for safety, 
other safety requests which have not yet been granted. Why not? Because 
the money is not there to do it.
  Now, I cannot stand here today and say that that tragedy would not 
have occurred in Little Rock. But we can say that the additional safety 
devices which they want and have applied for certainly would have 
provided a safer environment for them. Competition is something which 
we have all been in favor of, and yet we do not see it today in many of 
our major hubs.
  In fact, most of the major hubs is one dominant airline that controls 
70 to 80 percent of the slots of the gates. And why? Because we do not 
have the necessary expansion.
  As many of my colleagues know, the critical path generally is more 
runway. And if you could have more runways, then we could have more 
terminals and more gates. And indeed in this legislation, one of the 
reforms in this legislation is to provide the incentives for the 
airports to attract additional competition into the airport. And when 
that happens, we will see more competition, and more competition 
certainly works to the benefit of the traveling public.
  What are the needs? We are told that, all told, when we consider the 
money that is coming from the Aviation Trust Fund, the bonding that 
takes place at airports, the general fund, the total need is about $10 
billion a year. And we only have $7 billion a year. We are $3 billion 
short.
  There are 59 runway projects that need to be built. The money is not 
there. We are told in one study there is a 60-percent increase in 
infrastructure required to meet the future demands on our aviation 
system. The General Accounting Office tells us that the air traffic 
control system will need another $17 billion in the next 5 years.
  Well, is there a solution? Yes, there is a solution. And we are here 
with that solution today. The good news is that solution does not 
require any tax increase, nor does that solution require taking money 
away from other Federal programs.
  The solution is to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund. By doing so, we 
can have $14.3 billion in the next 5 years to be spent to improve 
aviation, and indeed that is only money that is going into the Aviation 
Trust Fund paid for by the American traveling public in their ticket 
tax.
  It is deja vu all over again when we look at the battle we fought 
last year on the Highway Trust Fund to unlock it so we would be 
straight with the traveling public and spend the money they put into 
the Highway Trust Fund for surface transportation improvements.
  So now we come today and say let us do the fair thing, the right 
thing, let us unlock the Aviation Trust Fund.
  In fact, if we do not unlock the Aviation Trust Fund, if things go on 
as they are, not only will we have the delays we talked about, the 
increasing safety problems, the Aviation Trust Fund in 10 years will 
have a balance of over $90 billion paid for by the traveling public and 
yet not spent.

                              {time}  1330

  Where do we offset the $14.3 billion? How can we say that we can 
spend the money going into the Aviation Trust Fund, which in the next 5 
years will be an increase of $14.3 billion, and not take it from other 
programs and live within the caps? It can be done, and this legislation 
does do it because we move the Aviation Trust Fund outside the cap, we 
do not spend increased money from the general fund; in fact, we put a 
freeze on the general fund so this works to the benefits of our friends 
on the Committee on Appropriations so that they do not have the 
pressure of having to increase general fund spending in the future 
because the only increase comes from the Aviation Trust Fund. Indeed, 
the 14.3 billion we take from the $780 billion 10-year tax cut, that is 
in the budget resolution that has passed this House earlier this year.
  Now stop and think about it for a minute. It is morally wrong to say 
we are going to take that $14.3 billion that is in the Aviation Trust 
Fund and use it, give it away, as part of a general tax cut. It is 
simply wrong, it is fraudulent, to take the tax money of the traveling 
public and then turn around and have that money given away as part of a 
general tax cut. That is a moral issue, as well as a financial issue, 
as well as a safety issue, and so we believe this legislation gets the 
job done, does not provide all the money we would like to see, but it 
certainly moves in the right direction.

[[Page 12844]]

  And another very important point: In this legislation, it does differ 
from TEA 21, the highway bill, in that we do not mandate that the money 
all be spent. The appropriators in our manager's amendment, the 
appropriators retain all of the authority which they now have, so if 
someone gets up here and tells us that the appropriators are losing 
their authority over this legislation, that is simply not the case. 
They can set the obligational ceilings; they will have the same 
authority under this legislation that they have today under current 
law.
  Indeed I was pleased to read this morning that the Speaker is going 
to support this legislation. I have just been informed, and I am proud 
to announce, that the Speaker, although a Speaker generally does not 
vote, the Speaker has informed me that he will vote on this legislation 
and he will vote in favor of this legislation. And why? Because it is 
good for America, because it the right thing to do.
  Another issue that is of importance to us here is that we provide the 
local authorities, the locally-elected authorities particularly, I say 
to my conservative Republican friends, we send back to the localities 
the authority on the decision of whether or not the PFCs, the passenger 
facility charges, should be increased; but, because there is a national 
interest in it, we put some strings on that decision.
  We say that we cannot increase PFCs unless we can justify to the 
Secretary of Transportation that with this additional money they are 
getting in our bill they still cannot do the job of providing safe 
transportation; they cannot provide in addition to safe transportation 
for a reduction in delays and an increase in competition. So all of 
those very important issues must be justified before a locality can 
increase its PFCs.
  In this legislation, simply by unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund, 
small airports will have their allocation increased threefold, as will 
the medium and large hubs. For the first time, the cargo airports will 
get funds, and so will general aviation, without any tax increase, 
simply by using the money that the American people are paying.
  Now we have heard, unfortunately, an article a few weeks ago about 
some of the Members being threatened by the Committee on Appropriations 
if they vote for this bill they will lose projects. I certainly do not 
believe it, and I know I have the highest regard for the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations. Just yesterday I was told that members 
of the New Jersey delegation were threatened that they would lose funds 
for their beaches. I am so happy to report to my colleagues that I have 
discussed this with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
and as I knew was the case, he has assured me that they do not operate 
this way and there certainly is no retribution, neither favors nor 
threats. And I knew that was the answer because I know my good friend, 
and I know what an honorable man of great integrity he is, but I am 
very pleased to be able to report.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would report to our colleagues on the same statement 
that I made to the gentleman, that the Committee on Appropriations does 
not seek to gain votes by offering projects to Members that might not 
otherwise be considered, nor would the Committee on Appropriations 
threaten to take away projects because of a lack of voting for an 
appropriation bill or something that the committee would support, and I 
thank the gentleman for bringing that to our attention.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my good friend. I knew that was the case, and I 
just appreciate him very much making that point.
  I also want to emphasize that we just received today a vote alert 
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in which they say that they support 
this legislation and oppose the weakening amendments. They recognize 
the importance of this legislation, so we are just very thrilled to 
have that kind of support as well, along with the announcement that the 
Speaker is going to vote for this legislation.
  There has been some misinformation put out, I am sure inadvertently. 
Let me emphasize again we do not touch the Social Security surplus, we 
do not touch other programs. The only increase is the increase from the 
Aviation Trust Fund.
  Now I have had some say to me, ``Well, we can get the money somewhere 
else.'' And I say respectfully, ``You've got your head in the sand. 
Where is the money going to come from if it does not come from the 
Aviation Trust Fund?'' And if we do not continue the historic 
commitment of the general fund, indeed we freeze the general fund so it 
cannot be increased, which certainly should be helpful to the 
appropriators.
  Let me conclude by sharing with my colleagues something that was 
provided to the Congress of the United States by the National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission, a commission created by the Congress of the 
United States just recently, and here is what they say:
  Without prompt action, the United States aviation system is headed 
toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the century. If this gridlock 
is allowed to happen, it will result in a deterioration of aviation 
safety, harm the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy and hurt 
our position in the global marketplace. Lives may be endangered, the 
profitability and strength of the aviation sector could disappear, and 
jobs and business opportunities far beyond aviation could be foregone.
  Let us do the right thing. Let us join with our Speaker and vote in 
favor of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, transportation has shaped America's history from its 
very origins, just as surely it guides our destiny as a Nation. From 
our beginnings as a colony and our restart as a new Nation, America 
first developed seaports which dominated the 18th century, and river 
ports which were characteristic of the 19th century, and railheads in 
the later 19th century, and our highway system through the late 20th 
century. But it is airports and aviation that guide and will shape 
America's destiny in the 21st century.
  The debate today is not about arcane budget rules. It is about the 
very future of America and our leadership in the world economy. Every 
Nation in the world looks to America as the leader in aviation in every 
aspect of aviation, in air traffic control technology, in runway 
construction. In the economic and commercial application of aviation, 
we are the world leader.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today for this debate, to make 
sure that the funding mechanism which undergirds and supports and makes 
possible our air traffic control system, our airport system, our safety 
and security measures, is itself secure, that it will provide for the 
future needs of the growth of aviation in America.
  We understand railroads, we understand transit links, we understand 
highways as part of an integrated system to deliver transportation 
necessary for job opportunities for local economic growth, for quality 
of life for the people of this country. But we do not understand, I do 
not think the understanding has settled in sufficiently with the people 
of this country to understand fully the role that aviation plays in 
America's current and future economy. The air traffic control system 
for our large hub airports, ever since the explosive growth that began 
in 1978 with deregulation of aviation, has put constraints, caused 
delays, created congestion both on the air side and the ground side at 
the Nation's airports. Flight delays, cancellations, slower flights are 
all indications of a system that is not meeting the demands of the 
Nation's growing economy.
  The DOT Inspector General just recently found that flights at nearly 
three-quarters of the major air routes are taking longer than they did 
10

[[Page 12845]]

years ago, as much as 20 minutes longer. Delta Airlines, for example, 
recently reported that inefficiencies in our air traffic control system 
cost that airline $300 million a year. But it is not just the major 
airlines, not just the major airports, it is our smaller communities in 
the hub and spoke aviation system that are also experiencing the strain 
of the inability of our aviation structure to meet the Nation's 
capacity requirements.
  George Bagley, Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Air, chairman of 
the Regional Airline Association, said that air traffic control and 
airport capacity limitations are increasingly burdensome issues for 
expanding regional airline service. He said we have always figured a 
way to park more airplanes and get more gates but this year we did not 
do some flying that we otherwise could have done.
  The Nation's airports are the ground hubs for these air routes. 
Capacity is limited. We cannot ignore critical issues, expanding 
runways to accommodate larger aircraft, expanding terminals, expanding 
gates to promote competition, and to accommodate the dramatic rise in 
passengers from 600 million passengers-plus last year to an anticipated 
billion passengers within the next 10 years.
  How does this play out? Worldwide there are 1 billion 200 million 
passengers flying all airlines in the entire world of all nations. Six 
hundred million, over half of those passengers fly in this airspace in 
the United States. That is how important. We are half, in fact more 
than half, of the world's total airport-airline passengers capacity. 
Travelers at 27 airports in the United States in the last year suffered 
more than 20,000 hours of delay at each of those airports, and if we do 
not pass this legislation and make the improvements necessary, we will 
see that number increase to 31 airports by 2007.
  We are falling short of airport capacity needs by $3 billion a year. 
We also have to make improvements in airport technology capacity along 
with the airport development needs. The shortfalls in airport 
technology and weather and radar technology also costs us billions of 
dollars in lost time and lost travel opportunities. Rural areas are 
denied the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the economic 
development that they would have because they cannot get into the major 
hub airports or cannot fully develop their own small airport systems.
  The National Civil Aviation Review Commission, chaired by former 
colleague and former chairman of this committee, Norm Mineta, put it 
very clearly. Without prompt action, the U.S. aviation system is headed 
toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the century. If gridlock 
occurs, it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety.

                              {time}  1345

  The Little Rock Airport situation which our chairman just recently 
addressed shows us once again, reminds us very vividly and powerfully 
that aviation accidents are caused by a chain of events, not by a 
single incident, not by a single missing link. But in this case, if 
only one link had been addressed, that accident might have been averted 
or its impact reduced. We are learning now about our weather detection 
system not fully operational, runway technology which might have 
prevented fatalities or injuries that was not installed. The proximate 
cause of the accident is still under investigation, but we are already 
beginning to see evidence of the possibility that increased aviation 
investment at that airport may well have made a difference in saving 
lives.
  Every dollar we do not spend from the Aviation Trust Fund makes it 
more likely that there will be more chains of events that lead to 
tragedies.
  The bill before us today begins to address the needs of the Nation's 
aviation system. It will ensure that the attention and focus we have 
invested in the Interstate Highway System will be extended to aviation, 
by assuring that we will have a guaranteed revenue stream to ensure 
that the investments in capacity, modernization, competition and safety 
in our system will be made and will benefit the traveling public.
  Example: A runway project at San Francisco to increase capacity and 
cope with noise will cost a minimum of $1.4 billion and will ensure 
that smaller airports can take advantage of that airport with increased 
investments in global positioning satellite technology and weather 
technology.
  The funding that we make possible through this guaranteed revenue 
stream will ensure that the AIP funding that will average $4 billion, 
together with the proposal to increase the ability of individual 
airports to increase their PFC by $3, will assure that we will have the 
funds we need at local airports to reduce congestion, improve safety, 
reduce noise, and enhance competition.
  There have been enormous successes with the limited and uncertain-
from-year-to-year dollars available for our air traffic control system. 
Despite the stop-and-go financing that has been characteristic of 
investment in ATC improvements, FAA has registered enormous success. 
The nearly $1 billion Voice Switching and Control System, VSCS, was 
installed over one weekend without shutting down the air traffic 
control system for 1 second and is now fully operational without any 
delays or difficulties or system failures that was characteristic of 
past communications systems and is vastly enhancing the ability of 
controllers to do their job.
  The Display System Replacement at the enroute centers has now been 
installed at all 20 enroute centers nationwide, another $1 billion 
system with a million lines of computer software code. It is now going 
through the final stages of acceptance at each one of those centers, 
vastly enhancing the ability of air traffic controllers to manage the 
increasing demands on our air traffic control system. Still to come are 
STARS and Wide Area Augmentation System. Those have incurred delays, 
but, again, a good deal of that delay has been due to inadequate 
funding.
  Tony Broderick, former FAA Assistant Administrator, asked the key 
question at our committee hearing when he said, we would never expect a 
business to run efficiently if the funding stream fluctuated wildly, so 
why do we expect this of the FAA managers? We cannot. With the funding 
mechanism we put in place in this legislation, we will assure that they 
have the dollars they need, and we will also ask more of them. With the 
Air Traffic Control Oversight Board created in this bill, we will 
increase focus on the managers' performance and hold them accountable 
for meeting schedule and budget targets.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation sets the stage for the 21st century, 
for the next wave of transportation, for the next generation of 
American growth in transportation and for growth in our economy at home 
and abroad. Just as last year's T-21 set the stage for America's 
movement into the 21st century in ground transportation, AIR 21 sets 
the stage for America's growth and movement into the 21st century. I 
congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) the chairman 
of our committee, on the leadership that he has demonstrated for this 
whole body, and for all of transportation in America last year when we 
moved T-21 and moved America off dead center and into the future, and I 
commend him again for the leadership that he has shown and for the 
courage of standing up for what is right for the budget for air 
travelers, for America, for aviation for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank my good friend for those 
kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to, first of all, say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have 
already made statements about the need for this legislation and the 
reasons behind it. So I want to add just a few things. But first, I 
want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the 
chairman of our committee,

[[Page 12846]]

for his leadership on this bill, and my good friend, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), of the full 
committee and the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for their leadership and hard work on 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is indeed historic legislation, because we are 
poised to take the Aviation Trust Fund off budget, produce a more 
honest budget for the American taxpayers, and take the first steps 
toward ensuring that our aviation system remains as one of the safest 
and most efficient in the world. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) noted, the Speaker of the House has strongly endorsed 
this bill, and the National Chamber of Commerce has strongly endorsed 
this bill. This is a good bill that all Members can support.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 
the 21st Century, or AIR 21, as it has been referred to, is a bill to 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration program through the 
year 2004. AIR 21 is no ordinary bill. AIR 21 ensures that aviation 
taxes will be spent for aviation infrastructure improvements.
  Last year, the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), led the effort, as the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) just noted, to unlock the Highway Trust Funds 
and ensure that highway taxes are spent on highways. Now we are 
attempting to and should do the same thing this year with the Aviation 
Trust Fund. I am proud to be a part of this effort to ensure that the 
taxes paid by aviation users will be spent only on aviation 
improvements. Unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund will benefit the entire 
aviation community, and it will also benefit even those who do not fly, 
because our entire economy is made stronger if we continually improve 
our aviation system.
  Aviation activity is growing at a startling rate. In 1998, airlines 
flew over 640 million passengers. That is an increase of more than 25 
percent from just 5 years ago. As this chart shows, current forecasts 
predict almost 1 billion employment sometime in the next 10 years, 
probably much sooner than that. At that growth rate, 10 new airports 
the size of Dallas-Fort Worth or Atlanta Hartsfield or Chicago/O'Hare, 
our largest airports, 10 of these large airports would be needed to 
adequately absorb these passengers.
  In addition, air cargo traffic is rising even faster. It rose over 50 
percent over the past 5 years and is expected to grow at an average of 
8 or 9 percent over the next 10 years. With all of this growth, 
aviation delays are high and expected to increase in the future. The 
Air Transport Association estimates the delays caused by infrastructure 
problems cost the airlines $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year. Without 
proper investment into aviation infrastructure, our Nation's already 
stressed aviation system could be pushed to the breaking point.
  AIR 21 acts to ensure that proper investment is available to fund 
improvements to our aviation system. By 2004, the bill raises the level 
of FAA operations to over $7 billion, the airport improvement program 
to over $4 billion, and facilities and equipment to $3 billion. The 
increase in AIP funding will triple the entitlement dollars for primary 
airports, triple the minimum entitlement for small airports, and fund 
an entitlement for general aviation airports up to $200,000.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does more or will do more for small and 
medium-sized airports than any bill in the history of the Congress. 
This infusion of money into airport infrastructure, this very needed 
infusion will ensure that our Nation continues to have the safest, most 
efficient air service in the world, and certainly that is a goal that I 
believe everyone in this Congress knows is necessary and that everyone 
in this Congress supports.
  One of the most important benefits of this new funding will be the 
tremendous improvement in airport infrastructure at small and midsized 
communities. First, to provide funding to these communities to obtain 
increased air service, this bill authorizes a $25 million program, and 
all of the communities that are underserved across this Nation need to 
support this bill because of that. In addition, the money provided in 
this program can be used to assist underserved airports in obtaining 
jet air service, and then in marketing that service to increase 
passenger usage. This money would be used by small airports that are 
currently served by turboprop aircraft to bring jet service to their 
communities.
  Secondly, the bill will improve competition by establishing a 
regional air service incentive program. This assistance program would 
seek to improve regional jet service to small communities by granting 
them Federal credit assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, this is indeed historic legislation, because we are 
poised to take the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget, produce a more 
honest budget for American taxpayers and take the first step toward 
ensuring that our aviation system remains one of the safest and most 
efficient in the world.
  As Chairman Shuster noted, the Speaker of the House has strongly 
endorsed this bill. The National Chamber of Commerce has strongly 
endorsed this legislation. This is a good bill.
  H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (or AIR 21) is a bill to reauthorize Federal Aviation 
Administration programs through the year 2004. AIR 21 is no ordinary 
bill. AIR 21 ensures that aviation taxes will be spent for aviation 
infrastructure improvements.
  Last year, Chairman Shuster led the effort that unlocked the highway 
Trust Fund and ensured that highway taxes were spent on highways. Now, 
we are attempting to and should do the same thing this year with the 
Aviation Trust Fund.
  I am proud to be a part of this effort to ensure that the taxes paid 
by aviation users will be spent only on aviation improvements. 
Unlocking the Aviation trust fund will benefit the entire aviation 
community, and even those who do not fly because our entire economy is 
made stronger if we continually improve our aviation system.
  Aviation activity is growing at a startling rate. In 1998 airlines 
flew over 640 million passengers.
  That is an increase of more than 25% from just five years ago. As 
this chart shows, current forecasts predict almost 1 billion 
enplanements in the next 10 years. At that growth rate, 10 new airports 
the size of Dallas/Ft. Worth, Atlanta Hartsfield or Chicago/O'Hare 
would be needed to adequately absorb these passengers.
  In addition, air cargo volume rose 50% over the last 5 years and is 
expected to grow 83% by 2008.
  With all of this growth, aviation delays are high and expected to 
increase in the future. The Air Transport Association estimates that 
delays caused by infrastructure problems cost the airlines $2\1/2\ to 
$3 billion a year.
  Without proper investment into aviation infrastructure, our nation's 
already stressed aviation system could be pushed to the breaking point.
  AIR 21 acts to ensure that proper investment is available to fund 
improvements to our aviation system.
  By 2004, the bill raises the level of FAA operations to over $7 
billion, the Airport Improvement Program to over $4 billion, Facilities 
and Equipment to $3 billion.
  The increase in AIP funding will triple the entitlement dollars for 
primary airports, triple the minimum entitlement for small airports 
from $500,000 to $1.5 million, and fund an entitlement for GA airports 
up to $200,000.
  This infusion of money into airport infrastructure will ensure that 
our nation continues to have the safest, most efficient air service in 
the world.
  One of the most important benefits of this new funding will be the 
tremendous improvement in airport infrastructure at small and mid-size 
communities.
  First, to provide funding to these communities to obtain increased 
air service, this bill authorizes a $25 million program.
  This money would provide assistance to a small or mid-sized community 
by making money available to an air carrier that serves that community. 
The money would subsidize the carrier's operations for up to 3 years if 
the Secretary of Transportation determines that the community is not 
receiving sufficient air carrier service.
  This assistance would come in the form of loan guarantees, secured 
loans, and lines of credit for commuter air carriers that promise to 
purchase regional jets and use them to serve a community for a minimum 
of three years.
  Most regional jets have lower operating costs, higher passenger 
capacity, and can fly

[[Page 12847]]

further than many of the turbo prop planes that they are beginning to 
replace. Jet service would greatly increase the travel choices for 
people living in small communities to major hub airports. These funding 
programs will allow small airports to enhance competition of low costs 
through regional jet service to ensure lower fares.
  This bill makes tremendous strides in ensuring that smaller 
communities that are often overlooked or ignored by air carriers for 
financial reasons, gain a foothold to attract more, and better, air 
service for their residents.
  We are also lifting slot restrictions at the New York and Chicago 
airports for regional jet service to small and nonhub airports 
effective March 1, 2000. This will open service to these airports and 
improve competition.
  DOT has said that elimination of slots is not a safety issue. 
Therefore, we can increase air service and competition to many 
destinations currently dominated by one carrier or destinations with 
inadequate air service.
  In addition, AIR 21 incorporates the National Park Overflights 
provisions based on a bill that I introduced. These provisions 
represent a strong compromise reached between all the parties involved 
in air tours over national parks. I am personally proud of the work 
that went into these provisions and I thank Chairman Young of the 
Resources Committee for his work on this issue also.
  This bill makes tremendous strides in meeting aviation needs and 
improving aviation infrastructure.
  It ensures that communities that are often overlooked or ignored by 
air carriers for financial reasons, can attract more, and better, air 
service for their residents.
  It also acts to enhance competition, safety and provide lower cost 
and better air service to all passengers.
  This bill is the result of a lot of hard work. But there is still a 
lot of hard work in front of us. There are opponents to this bill who 
object to taking the trust fund off-budget. These same opponents object 
to the General Fund component of this bill.
  The FAA's budget has had a General Fund component since its 
inception. The general fund contribution represents payment for a 
variety of FAA services, including services to military and other 
government aircraft, which use our airspace but do not pay taxes, as 
well as general safety and security services that benefit society as a 
whole by promoting economic growth.
  This general fund payment has been affirmed by the congressionally 
authorized National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC).
  This Commission NCARC stated that ``the cost of safety regulation and 
certification should be borne by a general fund contribution as these 
activities are consistent with the government's traditional role of 
providing for the general welfare of the citizens and are clearly in 
the broad public interest.''
  A similar conclusion was reached by the White House Commission on 
Aviation Security.
  The Commission concluded that the federal government should consider 
aviation security to be a national security issue and that the 
government should commit to providing substantial funding to reduce the 
threats posed by terrorist attacks on civil aviation.
  We are freezing the General Fund contribution in AIR 21 at the 1998 
enacted level. As shown in this historical chart, this will result in a 
general fund share of approximately 23% from 2001-2004, well beneath 
the average general fund component of 39%.
  This percentage is also well below the general fund share to other 
safety regulatory agency budgets. On average, these agencies (FDA, 
OSHA, and EPA) all receive about 80% or more of their budgets from the 
general fund. Comparatively, the FAA general fund contribution is a 
bargain.
  If the General Fund component were eliminated, general taxpayers 
would not be paying their fair share for FAA services that benefit 
society as a whole.
  Moreover, eliminating the General Fund component while maintaining 
the AIR 21 proposed funding levels would deplete the Trust Fund by 
2003.
  I urge you to vote against any amendment that contemplates cutting 
the general fund component of the FAA budget. If we allow AIR 21 to 
stand on its own, it will do great things for aviation.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster, 
Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Lipinski for all of their strong 
leadership efforts in crafting this legislation.
  AIR 21 has been a bipartisan project and has resulted in a bipartisan 
product that I truly believe is good for aviation.
  There are no earmarks in this bill, there is only the promise of 
safety and efficiency in our nation's aviation infrastructure in the 
years to come.
  That should be enough for all of us.
  I urge you to support H.R. 1000.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation, in a 
colloquy at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the loud noise generated from aircraft is having a 
negative impact on the quality of life and public health for thousands 
of residents living in areas with aircraft noise problems. In my 
congressional district, much of the aircraft noise is generated from 
the older, general aviation aircraft. At Teterboro Airport, which is 
located in my district, roughly 15 percent of the aircraft are still 
equipped with the louder stage-1 or stage-2 engines, and these 15 
percent of the aircraft account for 90 percent, 90 percent, of all of 
the aircraft noise violations at that airport.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the GAO, at the request of 
leaders from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
is conducting an investigation into aircraft noise to determine whether 
planes weighing less than 75,000 pounds should abide by the stricter 
stage-3 noise levels.
  Is that the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend that that is my 
understanding, the gentleman is correct; the GAO is looking into it. We 
thank the gentleman for bringing to this our attention, and we will 
very carefully review the GAO study.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I thank the 
ranking member.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a stalwart member of our 
committee.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about people. Upstate New 
York has been identified as an area that needs improvement and has been 
labeled a ``pocket of pain'' in the aviation system. The airports that 
serve my district are in dire need of many improvements, methods of 
enhancing accessibility, machinery, and, most importantly, technology.

                              {time}  1400

  Single airlines dominate service to the upstate region, and existing 
airline access rules have stifled competition and caused passengers to 
pay unreasonably high air fares.
  For example, a round trip ticket from Albany to Washington, D.C. is 
almost $700. We are losing jobs and a chance to compete globally. Air 
21 provides a critical step toward rebuilding the economies of many 
suburban and rural areas nationwide. I urge my colleagues to pass Air 
21 and give us a chance to grow and compete.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the full 
committee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1000, the 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, or Air 21. 
This is an historical piece of legislation that will unlock the 
aviation trust fund, allowing aviation taxes to be used to fund 
aviation infrastructure needs.
  The United States has the best aviation system in the world. It also 
has the busiest aviation system in the world. Since airline 
deregulation in 1978, the number of people flying has nearly tripled, 
from 230 million annually to 600 million last year. Passenger traffic 
is projected to reach 660 million this year, and approximately 1 
billion in the next 10 years.

[[Page 12848]]

  Even today, the FAA estimates that at any one time, there can be as 
many as 5,800 flights in the air over the United States.
  Unfortunately, at the same time that record levels of passengers are 
traveling, capacity constraints are threatening gridlock at our 
national aviation system. Our aging air traffic control system and our 
aging airports are having difficulty keeping up with the increased 
demand.
  In 1998, for example, 23 percent of all major air carrier flights 
were delayed 15 minutes or more. Delays caused by air traffic control 
equipment accounted for 22 percent of these delays, an increase of 9 
percent from the previous year. In fact, last year alone there were 101 
significant air traffic control outages which most often resulted in 
the FAA holding airplanes on the ground, keeping passengers waiting and 
waiting in the terminal or on the taxiway.
  If nothing is done, delays and congestion will only get worse. 
Increased delays will mean less predictability in the airlines' 
schedules, which are already padded to account for some delays.
  We cannot afford to have an aviation system that is so unreliable 
that it is not practical for users. This is why we need Air 21. By 
spending aviation taxes on aviation needs, Air 21 significantly 
increases investment in our nation's airports, runways, and air traffic 
control system today so our aviation system is ready for the increased 
demands of tomorrow.
  Modernizing our air traffic control system is key to increasing the 
capacity of our national air aviation system. It is only through 
advanced technology that more airplanes will be able to share the same 
airspace safely and effectively.
  For this reason, Air 21 provides $11.5 billion through the year 2004 
for the FAA's facilities and equipment program, which purchases 
equipment for the modernization of the air traffic control system. The 
FAA already has several important projects underway to replace and 
improve computers, radars, communication systems, and other vital 
components of the air traffic control system.
  However, major systemwide changes and improvements can take many 
years to develop and implement. Yet, in order to plan long-term 
improvements, the FAA needs a reliable stream of funding in order to 
know that it can see a project through from start to finish.
  In fact, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, in a speech to the National 
Press Club, stated that one of the most important things that can be 
done to support the FAA modernization efforts is to stabilize the 
agency's funding.
  Air 21 does exactly what is needed. It provides a steady, reliable 
stream of funding for the FAA and its air traffic control modernization 
projects. In addition to modernizing the air traffic control system, 
improvement and expansion of our nation's airports is needed to improve 
capacity.
  Even if we can accommodate more planes in the air, they all still 
need to find a place to land. Too many planes fighting for limited 
airport gates often leaves passengers waiting on the taxiway. 
Therefore, Air 21 increases the Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, to 
$4 billion in fiscal year 2001. The AIP program is vital to airports of 
all sizes throughout the Nation.
  The AIP program provides Federal grants to fund needed safety, 
security, capacity, and noise projects. Air 21 also authorizes local 
airport authorities to raise their passenger facility charges from $3 
to $6.
  The PFC has been an important funding source for local airport 
authorities that need to do important airport improvements that may not 
be eligible for AIP funds. For example, AIP funds cannot be used to 
fund construction of terminal or gate improvements at airports.
  Fortunately, local airports have been able to use revenues collected 
through the PFC to build shared or common use gates which can be used 
by any air carrier wishing to serve the airport. Such projects have 
helped increased capacity at the airports, as well as competition.
  In conclusion, I want to compliment the chairman of our committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for the outstanding work and cooperation they 
have done on this bill.
  I think only with the leadership of this committee have we been able 
to bring this bill to the floor of the House in such a unified fashion, 
and a bill that is good for aviation, not only today but all the way to 
the 21st century.
  The Chairman. Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) will control the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) until his return.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Air 21.
  I rise to engage with the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan), 
the chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy.
  I say to the gentleman from Tennessee, I appreciate very much the 
subcommittee's inclusion in the manager's amendment that allows the 
sale of Blue Ash Airport in the city of Cincinnati 3 years in advance 
of the expiration of its current grant assurance with the FAA.
  I understand that final acceptance of this language, however, may be 
subject to some conditions and concerns that the subcommittee may have. 
Would the gentleman care to express those concerns?
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his work on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the sale of the Blue Ash Airport will allow an 
important general aviation facility, which currently bases over 140 
aircraft, to remain open for an additional 20 years. General aviation 
airports are closing at the alarming rate of 1 a week, so the 
gentleman's efforts on this issue are timely and very important.
  The Subcommittee on Aviation, which I chair, held a hearing on this 
problem just last week. While we want to allow the sale of Blue Ash, it 
should be noted that Federal dollars have gone into the facility, and 
it is important that some proceeds of the sale be directed toward the 
improvement of other aviation facilities, such as Lunken Field, a 
general aviation airport in the area.
  Between now and the conference, I would urge all the participants to 
come together and develop a division of the sale proceeds along these 
lines. We may alter the language in conference to provide the FAA with 
some further guarantees that Blue Ash will in fact remain open for 
another 20 years.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman for his kind words, and I pledge 
the help of the Ohio delegation in securing this important work.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the generous 
grant of time.
  Mr. Chairman, what some would have us believe is that what we have 
before us today is a radical proposal; that is, that we should take a 
tax which is collected for one purpose from the American people for the 
aviation system and we should dedicate it to that purpose.
  We will hear from members of the Committee on the Budget and members 
of the Committee on Appropriations saying that is unconscionable that 
we should take it from one purpose and actually spend it on that. They 
do not like that. They are going to raise false allegations that this 
somehow will impact social security or other things.
  None of that is true. This is the way it should be and should have 
been. Our system is going to be overcapacity in the near future. We 
need to invest. We are collecting this tax from the American people to 
invest in this system.

[[Page 12849]]

This bill will move us into the next century with greater capacity, 
greater comfort, and greater safety.
  It has some other provisions that go directly to safety, to the 
competition for small airports, so they can attract new airlines and 
help the underserved airports.
  All in all, this is an excellent piece of work, the first step in 
what should be a two-part process, the next dedicated to safety and 
passenger rights and to more competition.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is essential to recognize that the aviation industry 
is extremely important to the future of this Nation, and is growing 
very rapidly. Our duty as legislators is to be aware of this, and also 
to move rapidly to deal with the problems of aviation.
  I urge that the House pass this bill, and that we resolve the issues 
quickly.
  Just to give an example of the problems, my local airport, Kent 
County International Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, needs to 
replace one runway, to totally renovate it. They are anxious to get 
started on that project soon, before the runway deteriorates so much 
that it can not be safely used.
  Airport authorities have worked out a letter of intent with the FAA, 
but the FAA is not signing any new letters of intent until this 
legislation is passed, because they do not have the legal authority to 
do so. If we do not pass this bill soon and get the President's 
signature on it we in the north will lose another construction season, 
thereby endangering passengers. This is just one example of the 
situations local airports face, and shows that we have to make our 
decisions very quickly here.
  I also urge that we adopt this bill because I believe it is going to 
provide a fair method of allocating resources that we raise through 
special aviation taxes, so that we can ensure that these taxes are used 
appropriately for the purposes for which they were raised.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might engage in a very 
brief colloquy with the ranking member.
  I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I 
strongly support Air 21 because an adequate air transport is a key 
component to a livable community, to make sure it is healthy and well-
functioning.
  Yet in most of the communities one of the most harrowing parts of the 
journey is trying to actually get to the airport, and not just for 
passengers. There are problems for the many thousands of employees that 
work there, and the timing of freight is increasingly difficult.
  Yet, the Federal government invests hundreds of billions of dollars 
on the ground, and Air 21 means tens of billions of dollars in the air. 
I would ask the gentleman if, under the implementation of Air 21, if 
there are ways to assure better coordination between air and ground 
transport, either coordination with the FAA, spotlighting the facts 
that have been done, or ways to get more representation of air issues 
on MPOs?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on his 
leadership and concern on the issue of livable communities, and access 
to airports is one of those livability issues.
  The gentleman has cited the metropolitan planning organizations and 
other surface transportation planning entities as essential to the 
process of airport development. Their role should be included by 
airport authorities in the planning process. That is one step in 
achieving the goal the gentleman seeks.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. I support the legislation. I 
hope we will be concerned in its implementation to make sure that we 
can do a good job of putting these pieces together.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time 
to me, and for having the opportunity to have a colloquy with the 
distinguished ranking member.
  I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota, plans have been 
submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration to expand Cleveland 
Hopkins International Airport, and the expansion of the airport is a 
sensitive issue for the community I represent. The expansion is 
expected to involve a sharp increase in airport traffic.
  For example, the airport is already expected to experience an 
increase of 200 daily flights this summer, and the current level of 
aircraft noise is very disruptive to peoples' lives. Further increases 
will cause more suffering. Protection of these residents against 
current levels of noise and pollution must be addressed before any new 
expansion plans are considered.
  I would appreciate the guidance of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) as to how this bill would be able to assist my constituents.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the Airport Authority at Cleveland can 
already use its AIP funds for noise abatement under the Part 150 rules 
of FAA. In addition, as the airport authority is expanding the runway 
and adding capacity, they will very likely use a PFC to do so, and will 
be able to use part of that PFC money for part 150 noise abatement.
  There are at least those two very important tools to reduce noise on 
airport neighbors. I compliment the gentleman on his initiative.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Resources and senior member of our committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
the Aviation Reform and Investment Act of the 21st Century.
  We need to invest in our aviation infrastructure. More people are 
flying than ever before. The Aviation Trust Fund continues to 
accumulate unspent revenue. We have a responsibility, no, an 
obligation, to return and invest those tax dollars of the aviation 
American system. If it is the will of Congress not to make the 
investment, then we should stop collecting those taxes.
  In 1998, the Aviation Trust Fund collected $6 billion of taxpayer 
money but Congress only invested $5.9 billion of it in aviation. As a 
result, our constituents continue to face delays and frustrations.
  If we continue the current budgetary gimmickry, the cash balance in 
the trust fund will grow from $12 billion in 1999 to $91 billion by the 
year 2009. Again, if Congress will not spend these dedicated tax 
dollars, then we have to reduce taxes and fees collected from aviation 
users.
  Without the investment, the FAA will continue to experience system 
outages. That means air traffic control will lose sight of a plane on 
radar. The FAA says there can be as many as 5,800 flights in the air 
over the U.S. at any one time. As the number of those flights in the 
air increase, congestion will grow. Without further investment, the 
safety of air travel will degrade.
  Is this bill going to cut funding from other programs? No. Air 21 
recaptures unspent aviation taxes that increases aviation spending by 
$14 billion over 4 years.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his hard work, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) and chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). I appreciate their bipartisan leadership as we 
try to

[[Page 12850]]

address the inequities that GAO has found that we are underfunding 
aviation infrastructure by $3 billion annually and, more disturbing, 
underfunding air traffic control modernization by $1 billion annually.
  For years, we have had the means to eliminate this funding gap 
through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is generated by fuel 
and ticket taxes. Unfortunately, surpluses have been maintained while 
our infrastructure continues to deteriorate. This bill greatly 
increases funding to modernize our aging air traffic control system and 
serves to increase transportation competition at airports all across 
the Nation.
  Rural states like Maine need Air 21 to improve their air 
infrastructure, to ensure the safety of the traveling public and to 
ensure that we have the greatest amount of competition and service. In 
our own community, we are seeing the need of new air traffic towers and 
also the need for runways to be rebuilt and to be modernized as we 
prepare for more and more airline competition. I would like to thank 
the Members. I enjoyed working as a member of the subcommittee and the 
full committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in a colloquy.
  First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the 
hard work they put into this legislation, which authorizes the 
important programs ensuring safe and efficient air travel.
  I would like to take this opportunity to express to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) my strong support for the extension of 
the runway at the Ohio University Airport in Athens, Ohio, from 4,200 
feet to 5,600 feet. It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation 
Administration has already approved the airport layout design and the 
environmental assessment on the project will be completed at the end of 
this summer.
  I hope that this worthy project will be a priority for the FAA in the 
fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is the very kind of project the 
airport improvement program is intended to nurture and to provide 
funding for. So I believe, as the gentleman has been such a strong 
advocate for this project and for this airport and for his community, 
that it offers significant benefits to rural southern Ohio and the FAA 
should be able to proceed with the funding necessary to accomplish the 
objectives.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, let me also say that I appreciate the 
understanding of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the 
needs of an area like rural southern Ohio.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in the 1980s the Reagan administration let 
antitrust enforcement in the country collapse. With that and the demise 
of regulation, we have seen predatory pricing, monopoly power and 
monopoly pricing in the airline industry.
  For example, in those areas where we find real competition, as 
opposed to those where it is not, the price where there is no 
competition is often three to four times the price of where there is 
competition, covering the same amount of distance.
  It is quite clear that airlines are taking advantage of a monopoly 
situation and the ability to price their rides as high as they want to 
when there is nobody to compete with them.
  We have to have a system of regulation in our country that regulates 
airlines in accordance with competition and provides that people who 
need to travel from one place to another can do that at a fair and 
reasonable price.
  Let me just give you one example. To fly from Ithaca, New York to 
Washington costs $628. If one were to fly the same distance from San 
Diego to San Francisco, for example, even a little bit less, what 
someone would pay for the lowest airfare is less than $100. It is quite 
clear that the system is out of control. Monopoly pricing and monopoly 
power has led to a system where most people in our country are being 
deprived of the airline service they need.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) in a colloquy. Of particular concern to me and my 
constituents is the need to ensure basic radar coverage for smaller 
airports like the one in Livermore, California, my district, which is 
one of the busiest general aviation airports in the state. Yet 
Livermore's technology is nothing more advanced than a simple pair of 
binoculars.
  This situation is particularly problematic during periods of poor 
weather when the safety of both those in the air and living on the 
ground is of primary concern.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to continue its work on promoting 
air safety across the country, not just at major airports but at 
smaller ones like at Livermore, which are desperately in need of radar 
coverage.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentlewoman 
completely. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why we need to free up 
funding in this legislation so that we can provide this kind of safety 
for our airports.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) for his response.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1000.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Ground Transportation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for the work 
that has gone into putting together this Air 21.
  As a supporter of Air 21, I would like to point out a special feature 
of this legislation that will be added at a later point in today's 
proceedings as part of the manager's amendment.
  It has been the policy of the United States to promote transportation 
intermodalism. While we have integrated this concept throughout our 
ground transportation programs, it remains somewhat alien in Federal 
policy toward airport development.
  The amendment to be offered by the chairman today, offered shortly, 
includes a provision that I devised aimed at promoting transportation 
intermodalism under the AIP program. By facilitating projects which 
provide for air-to-truck, air-to-rail and air-to-transit movement of 
commodities and people, I believe we can enhance airport revenues and 
further stimulate regional economic development activities.
  So for this reason, as well as the many other important merits of 
this legislation, I urge support of it and at the proper time urge 
defeat of the major amendment that will be offered today by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Tennessee

[[Page 12851]]

(Mr. Duncan) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  This is a very important bill for this country and in particular for 
Florida, and it is necessary in order to keep the aviation system the 
safest and most efficient in the world. It provides funds to expand 
capacity and update our airports. Orlando and members of the Orlando 
Aviation Authority here today will reach 30 million passengers in the 
next few years. Miami, the gateway to the Americas, will handle 35 
million passengers and 2.9 million tons of cargo.
  I also want to point out that we need to ensure that we have adequate 
supply of air traffic controllers in the next century. I have been 
visited by controllers in my district who are concerned about this 
issue. I have pledged to work with them on this issue. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill, because serious aviation needs exist 
in all of our districts.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am a big supporter of Air 21 
as well, and I have some technical amendments to the bill but I wanted 
to ask a couple of questions, if I might, of our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Most recently, the mayor of the busiest airport in the world, we 
claim, and the Governor had lunch with the Illinois delegation. The 
mayor indicated that the PFC funds would not go to new runways or 
runway expansion at O'Hare Airport. Is that the gentleman's 
recollection of the conversation?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, my recollection of the conversation is 
that the mayor said that he would not use PFC funds to expand any 
runways at O'Hare Airport. That is my recollection of what he had to 
say.
  The mayor has said on numerous occasions he has no intentions of 
expanding any runways at O'Hare or adding any new runways at O'Hare.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for that response.
  One other question. Are there any of the PFC revenues, to the best of 
the gentleman's knowledge, being used to lengthen runways at Midway 
Airport?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. To the best of my knowledge, this is not being done. 
The PFCs are not being used for any runways at Midway Airport. The PFC 
money is being utilized in the new terminal and in other improvements 
at a terminal facility.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may, in a moment, sum up this debate, the issue is 
about safety, capacity, competition and guaranteeing a revenue stream, 
guaranteeing that the air travelers who pay the taxes for the 
improvements, for the safety, for the convenience, for the security at 
our airports will see those benefits realized in the investments from 
the Aviation Trust Fund that will be assured by passage of this 
legislation.
  It will also address the issue of collisions between aircraft and 
other vehicles on the runway surface. We ensure that there is adequate 
whistleblower protection to FAA and airplane employees who reveal 
safety problems without fear of retribution. Cargo airlines will be 
required to install collision avoidance devices by December 21, 2002 to 
avoid incidents like the recent near collision of two cargo aircraft 
over Kansas.
  The issue, though, in this debate comes down to the question we 
addressed at the outset. Will the Members of this body vote to ensure 
that the taxes paid by American citizens to ensure safe, secure, timely 
passage and competition at airports will actually be invested for that 
purpose? That is the issue today: Fairness and investment in America's 
future.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my Members to support this historic legislation. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) mentioned just a few moments 
ago about the problems of needing funding for his runway at his 
airport. I am told that over the next 10 years, 50 percent of all the 
airport runways in America are going to require rehabilitation, and 
that 75 percent of the large and medium hub runways will. So the needs 
are very clearly there.
  I also have just learned, in addition to the comments I made 
concerning the catastrophe, the tragedy at the Little Rock Airport, 
that the Little Rock Airport has had a request in for a safety area 
arrester. However, the FAA has not been able to fund it. Just one 
example of a safety need that is unmet and a safety need that possibly 
could have made a difference.
  Now, I might conclude by noting that we are about in the same 
position now as we were in BESTEA when we brought BESTEA to the floor 
last year. We had some disagreements here on the floor. We had some 
disagreements at that point in time with the administration. Indeed, I 
met with Secretary Slater last night.

                              {time}  1430

  We have agreed that we are going to have to negotiate as we go along 
and as this legislation moves to the Senate. So we are quite prepared 
to compromise in everybody's best interest. But indeed we have a broad 
array of support for this legislation. Why? Because this legislation is 
good for America.
  I might share with the body some of the groups that support unlocking 
the Aviation Trust Fund. Consider this broad array of groups: The 
Airline Pilots Association; the National Governors Association; 
Coalition for America, Paul Weyrich, a very conservative organization; 
the Transportation Trade Departments of the AFL-CIO; the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce; the NFIB, National Federation of Independent Businessmen.
  When we can get the Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, and the AFL-CIO to 
stand together, we must be doing something right.
  The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; the Air Transport 
Association; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the Farm 
Bureau. I say to my rural friend, and of course I represent a rural 
area as well, the American Farm Bureau supports unlocking the Aviation 
Trust Fund.
  The list goes on and on and on. The AAA, the American Automobile 
Association. A list that covers, single spaced, a whole page of very 
diverse groups which strongly support unlocking the Aviation Trust 
Fund. Why? Because it is good for America. It is the right thing to do. 
It is morally wrong to take aviation ticket taxes and use those ticket 
taxes for a general tax cut.
  So we take that very small portion of the general tax cut which is 
coming from aviation ticket taxes, in fact, it amounts to about 1.7 
percent of the overall tax cut, but that is the part attributable to 
the aviation ticket tax, it is only fair that it be used for aviation 
purposes. If we do not have the needs, the tax should be reduced and 
not given away to another segment of our society.
  So this legislation is good for America. It has strong bipartisan 
support. It passed our committee 75 to 0. I urge, for the good of our 
country, for the good and the future of aviation in America, I urge 
strong support for this legislation.
  I close by again saying how pleased I was to be able to announce that 
the Speaker of the House has said that he will come to the well and 
vote in favor of this legislation today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I complement the gentleman's statement by 
assuring Members on our side that the minority leader, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), will also be in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and there my 
colleagues have it. The Speaker of the

[[Page 12852]]

House, our leader, the Democratic minority leader. So how much more 
bipartisan can we get? This is good for America. We have got the 
support of our top leaders, the unanimous support of our committee, 
once more a bipartisan product from our committee. It is good for 
America.
  Let us rebuild our aviation system so we can move into the 21st 
century and retain the best aviation system the world has ever known.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 
the 21st Century (AIR-21) is an urgently needed bill whose time is long 
overdue. Our country needs to wake up to the true meaning of the word 
``infrastructure'' today. Those whose view of infrastructure stops with 
roads and bridges will find that they are more a part of the 19th 
century than the 21st. Further delay in passing AIR-21 is likely to 
leave the country with a national aviation system stalled in the past 
as well.
  The underfunding of our air infrastructure system has become a threat 
to our global economic position. Neglected investment has gone on for 
so many years now that it amounts to disinvestment. Reports concerning 
the effects of underfunding are frightening. For example, the U.S. will 
require a 60% increase in airport infrastructure investment in the next 
decade simply to maintain the levels of delay tolerated in air service 
in this country today.
  Instead of increasing productivity to keep up with exploding 
increases in air travel (a 50% increase in the next decade alone), 
airlines are racking up record delays at a cost of $2.5 billion 
annually and a loss in productivity to the nation of over $1 billion 
every year. How long can our airlines remain competitive with foreign 
carriers, many of them publicly subsidized, at that rate?
  The needs of our aviation system are legion from top to bottom: from 
runways to terminals; from hiring air traffic controllers to 
modernizing our antiquated air traffic control system; from funding to 
raise safety standards at small airports to a new streamlined 
environmental program patterned on the TEA-21 program; from loans to 
help airlines buy regional jets for service to small communities to 
increased funding for primary airports and major hubs. Some say we 
cannot afford this bill. It is clear that we cannot afford the 
continued neglect of what was once a world class air transportation 
system.
  Part of the delay in bringing this bill to the floor has had very 
little to do with the funding and budgetary provisions of AIR-21. The 
manipulation of slots for landings has delayed this bill and hurt the 
great majority of airports for which the slot concern is irrelevant. 
Slot manipulation has spread from National Airport in the Washington 
metropolitan region to three other airports. However, National Airport 
raises problems of the greatest magnitude because its compact land mass 
and short runways prevent it from ever becoming a state-of-the-art 
airport. The present slot rule at National Airport has been considered 
minimally necessary because of the unusually heavy population density 
near the airport, the clear safety risk, and the palpable noise 
intrusions. Some residents of the region justifiably complain about any 
new increase in slots. Even with the present slot and perimeter rule, 
airport noise is one of the factors that drives taxpayers to flee from 
the District, a city desperately trying to hold on to residents as the 
city emerges from a fiscal crisis. Nevertheless, Chairmen Shuster and 
Duncan and Ranking Members Oberstar and Lipinski deserve the 
appreciation of the region for resisting the greatly expanded slot 
rules advocated by a few in the Senate. I have strongly opposed any 
additional slots. However, I must express my gratitude that the 
leadership of the House Committee has accommodated the unique needs of 
the national capital area region. The compromise allows for 6 
additional slots per day, and none of the additional flights may 
venture outside the existing 1,250-mile perimeter restriction.
  The excellent, painstaking work that has gone into this bill cannot 
keep it from facing a long, hard road ahead. It will be difficult 
enough to secure sufficient funding to do the job necessary to preserve 
and advance our national aviation system. However, we will face a fight 
of special ferocity to maintain the slot compromise contained in this 
bill, even with the House Committee leadership firmly behind the 
compromise. I do not underestimate the fight ahead. It is the right 
fight. It is the least the people of the District of Columbia and this 
region deserve. I intend to make that fight.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1000, the 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, commonly 
referred to as Air 21. This legislation will improve the prospects of 
passenger safety for every American who flies our nation's skies. Air 
21 significantly improves our nation's airport infrastructure.
  The Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is a 
comprehensive reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration 
and the Airport Improvement Program. As a frequent traveler, I am 
continually reminded how far our aviation infrastructure has declined. 
I continually run into flight delays and hear more consumer complaints. 
I understand that much of this is due to the increasing popularity of 
air travel. In 1998, there were more than 643 million airline 
passengers in the United States. At the current rate of increased 
travel, in 10 years more than one billion people will use air travel 
annually. For that reason, we must act now. We must pass this 
legislation to ensure that every passenger has the peace of mind that 
they are safe in the air. This bill will do that by heavily improving 
our air traffic control system.
  The air traffic control system in the United States is the most 
complex system in the world. The United States has more than 32,500 
facilities and systems. Many of these facilities and the equipment that 
are used are 20 to 30 years old. The GAO estimated that the FAA would 
need $17 billion from 1999 through 2004 to modernize the air traffic 
control system. Air 21 will help address these problems by insuring 
stable funding to complete system upgrades throughout the country.
  The most important aspect of this legislation is moving the aviation 
trust fund off budget. Air 21 will be largely funded through the 
collection of the aviation ticket tax deposited in the Aviation Trust 
Fund. It is important that when taxpayers pay a tax intended for a 
specific purpose, that we in Congress have the discipline to spend the 
revenue for that purpose and not use it to mask the size of the federal 
deficit. These funds are paid by the people who use air travel and 
should be spent to improve air travel. If we are not going to use the 
funds for that purpose, we should not be collecting them. Air 21 
ensures that all Passenger Facility Charge's and other ticket taxes 
will go for their intended purpose--aviation infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important 
legislation. Our nation's aviation infrastructure is the envy of the 
rest of the world. In order for it to remain as such, we must plan now 
for the future. For the safety of every citizen in your district who 
uses air travel for work or pleasure, we must pass this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act of 1999, or AIR21 as it is 
better known. Not only does this bill permit the Passenger Facility 
Charge (PFC) to double, contrary to its other attempts to reduce air 
fares, but the measure will permit a substantial increase in flights to 
and from Chicago's O'Hare Airport and three other slot-controlled 
airports along the East Coast.
  While I can appreciate the desire of smaller cities to have more 
airline service to and from slot-controlled airports, H.R. 1000 
cavalierly discounts the legitimate concerns of residents living near 
those airports about increases in noise and the likelihood of an 
accident. Worse yet, it does so needlessly.
  The district I am privileged to represent in this Congress has many 
such residents--hard working people, many of whom remember that the 
number of flight slots at Chicago's O'Hare Airport was increased by 37 
just last year. That fact notwithstanding, AIR21 would either eliminate 
the High Density Rule (otherwise known as the slot rule) which has been 
in effect at O'Hare for the past 30 years or, if the Manager's 
Amendment prevails, phase out that rule by the year 2002. Either way, 
H.R. 1000 would make possible yet another increase in the number of 
flight operations at O'Hare, even though there is a way to address the 
travel needs of people in outlying areas without increasing the number 
of flights to and from that already crowded airport.
  Mr. Chairman, people of goodwill differ as to whether flight 
operations at O'Hare are approaching, have reached, or are now above 
the optimum capacity of that airport, which is located 18 miles 
northwest of downtown Chicago. However, there is general agreement that 
flight operations will exceed the optimum level significantly in the 
years ahead if present trends continue. In 1998, approximately 887,000 
planes flew in and out of O'Hare, up from 883,000 in 1997, and if the 
recently announced $1 billion addition of two new airport terminals is 
any indication, that figure will almost assuredly rise in the years 
ahead.
  For those living near O'Hare, that means nearly 2,460 planes take off 
or land on a normal day, or at least one plane every thirty seconds 
from just after 6 a.m. to just before 10 p.m. Not only that, but 
roughly 10 percent of the total number of flights occur later in the 
evening or earlier in the morning. Put yourself in the shoes of those 
who are bombarded by

[[Page 12853]]

the resulting noise and I think you can understand why they are saying 
enough is enough.
  Making matters worse, the noise problem around O'Hare--which is owned 
by the city of Chicago rather than any of the sixteen neighboring 
villages--is anything but new. For years now, residents of communities 
up to 15 miles away have been begging for relief from the roar of 
airplanes flying overhead, only to have their pleas fall on seemingly 
deaf ears. So frequent and so loud is the noise that many people cannot 
get a good night's sleep, carry on an uninterrupted conversation, or 
make enjoyable use of their own back yards. Worse yet, none of the 
remedies attempted to date--such as the Night Time Tower Order 
instituted in January 1984 and the Fly Quiet program initiated in June 
1997--has brought about the desired relief. To the contrary, during the 
first half of 1998, noise levels increased from 1% to 9% at 23 of 28 
noise monitors located at various places around the 7,700 acres on 
which O'Hare International Airport is located.
  For good reason, much has been made of the fact that, by the year 
2000, all Stage 2 jet aircraft operating in and out of U.S. airports 
are to be replaced by Stage 3 airliners that are 5-10% quieter. In 
theory at least, completion of that transition should provide a modicum 
of noise relief for those who live near O'Hare Airport, as could the 
use of fewer but larger aircraft on routes now served by multiple 
flights. But, as a practical matter, that relief will never materialize 
if the number of landings at, and takeoffs from, O'Hare continues to 
rise as a result of the immediate or phased elimination of the High 
Density Rule. Instead, the noise reduction benefits associated with the 
use of quieter and perhaps bigger aircraft will be offset--or more than 
offset--by the numerical increase in the number of flights.
  To the extent that it resulted in a diversion of flights away from 
O'Hare, construction of a new regional airport at Peotone, Illinois 
could also abate the noise problem plaguing Chicago's northwest 
suburbs. Conceptually, the relief this project promises could be even 
more pronounced than that attributable to advances in aircraft 
acoustics technology. But, here again, the theory is at odds with the 
reality. Not only is the city of Chicago opposed to the project, but so 
too are the major airlines serving the city. Furthermore, the FAA has 
taken the Peotone airport proposal off its planning list, all of which 
suggests that a new airfield at Peotone is many years away, if indeed 
one is ever built there at all. Meanwhile, over 400,000 people around 
O'Hare will be exposed to increasing levels of aircraft noise unless 
action is taken promptly to address their concerns.
  That being the case, Mr. Chairman, permit me to suggest to my 
colleagues that AIR 21 is seriously misdirected, not just on PFC's, but 
as it relates to air service to and from Chicago's O'Hare Airport. 
Instead of allowing for any increase in the number of flights to and 
from O'Hare, what H.R. 1000 should do is impose a permanent ban on 
flight operations at O'Hare at the current level, or better yet at the 
1997 level, and assign any additional flights destined for O'Hare to 
other nearby airports, two in particular. That way, extra air service 
could be provided to the Chicago area from smaller communities in the 
Midwest without compromising safety or aggravating the very serious 
noise problem that deserves to be addressed without further delay.
  Are those two steps practical, given the fact that one of those 
alternative airports--75 year old Midway Airport (all 640 acres of 
it)--is a very busy place already? Quite simply, the answer is yes, 
since Midway's terminal facilities currently are in the process of 
being expanded and since there is another airport in Illinois, within 
60 miles of O'Hare, that is not only capable of, but interested in, 
handling additional flights. That airport, located near an interstate 
highway (I-90) that also serves O'Hare, has a 10,000 foot runway (the 
second longest in the state), an 8,200 foot runway, a 65,000 square 
foot passenger terminal and considerable experience handling large jets 
as well as major shipments of cargo. The name of that facility, which 
serves the second largest city in Illinois: the Greater Rockford 
Airport.
  Adding to its potential as an alternative to O'Hare is the fact that 
approximately one million residents of the Chicagoland suburbs can also 
be served by the Greater Rockford Airport, roughly twice the number of 
people likely to use the proposed airport at Peotone. Also, this under-
utilized, 3,000 acre airfield could accommodate additional flights in 
short order and at little extra expense unlike a new airport at Peotone 
area, the cost of which could run from $300 million to nearly $3 
billion depending upon its ultimate size.
  Given Greater Rockford's existing facilities and tremendous 
potential, my feeling is that it and Midway can handle all the extra 
flights to and from O`Hare that might result from the immediate or 
phased elimination of the slot rule. But even if that assumption is 
incorrect, there are several other air terminals within 100 or so miles 
of Chicago--in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Gary, Indiana for example--
which could accommodate flights added for the purpose of increasing air 
service to smaller communities. In short, there is simply no 
justification for allowing an increase in the number of flight 
operations at O'Hare at the expense of thousands people already 
afflicted by excessive noise. The air service objectives of H.R. 1000 
can be achieved admirably by other means.
  All that being the case, I urge my colleagues to vote against AIR21 
so long as it allows for a doubling of the PFC and makes possible an 
increase in the number of flights to and from O'Hare Airport. Instead, 
let us develop a less-taxing alternative, such as making increased use 
of the Greater Rockford Airport, that will accommodate those who wish 
to visit the great city of Chicago without making life even more 
miserable for thousands of long suffering people who reside in its 
northwest suburbs. They deserve a better fate.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, the Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. This bill is not a 
budget-buster, Mr. Chairman. This bill restores truth in budgeting. 
Just as we must maintain the integrity of the Social Security and 
Highway Trust Funds, so must we restore the integrity of the Aviation 
Trust Fund.
  H.R. 1000 ensures that when my constituents fly from Omaha to their 
destinations, the fees they pay on their tickets and the taxes paid on 
the travel will go towards increasing safety on the ground and in the 
air, while maintaining and improving our aviation infrastructure.
  The aviation industry has grown by leaps and bounds since 
deregulation. Air travel has grown by 27 percent since 1994 and is 
expected to exceed 1 billion passengers annually during the next 
decade.
  Eppley Airfield, a regional airport located in my district in Omaha, 
Nebraska, is the sixth fastest growing airport in the country, serving 
over 3.5 million passengers a year. In order to accommodate this rapid 
growth, our Airport Director, Don Smithey, has developed a 10-year 
Master Plan, which includes a new terminal and a third runway.
  AIR 21 will allow Eppley to execute this Master Plan without delay 
and additional expense.
  As any of us who fly on a regular basis know, our airports are 
becoming more and more congested--patience is growing thin, while 
delays are increasing in number.
  This bill would allow for the increased capacity desperately needed 
at our airports--making for fewer delays and increasing competition. It 
will also make it easier for smaller cities and underserved markets to 
attract airline service.
  We have runways that need strengthening. Our air traffic control 
systems need upgrading. There are security measures that we must put in 
place to address the increasing threats of terrorism.
  The General Accounting Office reports that we are underfunding 
airport infrastructure by $3 billion annually, and underfunding our air 
traffic control modernization by $1 billion annually. That is not 
acceptable, Mr. Chairman.
  Fees and taxes on air travel were originally proposed, so that we 
could generate a self-sustaining fund to make these improvements and 
advances.
  Since 1970, the flying public and the aviation community have been 
investing in the aviation trust fund with the understanding that the 
money would be returned in the form of aviation improvements.
  This has not been the case. Congress has not kept its promise. For 
years, users of our aviation infrastructure have been paying these fees 
and taxes, only to watch them disappear into the general fund. Where is 
the fiscal integrity? Where is the truth in budgeting?
  H.R. 1000 will keep our budget honest. We reinforce the Aviation 
Trust Fund, by ensuring that the money paid into the fund will be paid 
out on Aviation. It keeps the promises we made to both the flying 
public and the aviation community.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1000.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1000, the 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
  Th New York metropolitan area air space is the busiest in the nation. 
While many people enjoy the benefits of frequent flights into and out 
of New York, my constituents are forced to endure the noise of a plane 
landing or taking off every 30 seconds at LaGuardia Airport, as well as 
the pollution and traffic congestion. During the one minute that I will 
be speaking on the Floor, one plane will take off, and another plane 
will land at LaGuardia. If the High Density rule is lifted, the sky is 
literally the limit

[[Page 12854]]

for the number of take-offs and landings that can be added to an 
already overcrowded LaGuardia and JFK airports.
  There is also a legitimate need for more flights and lower prices for 
airline travel to underserved markets. I am pleased that the Manager's 
Amendment strikes a reasonable compromise for both positions. In order 
to provide better service from underserved markets, regional jets will 
be exempt from the High Density Rule for service from LaGuardia or JFK 
Airports to nonhub or small hub airports, effective January 1, 2000. 
And, to protect those people who live, work and go to school in the 
areas near these airports, the High Density Rule will remain in place 
until January 1, 2000. And, to protect those people who live, work and 
go to school in the areas near these airports the high Density Rule 
will remain in place until January 1, 2007 for all other jet service.
  I am particularly proud to have worked with other Members of the New 
York, New Jersey, Connecticut tri-state area, particularly, Mr. 
Crowley, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Weiner, and Mrs. Maloney, in addition to the 
diligent work of the Transportation Committee, Chairman Shuster, 
Ranking Member Oberstar, Chairman Duncan, and Ranking Member Lipinski. 
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
amendment which is a win-win situation for all parties, and a major 
victory for the people of Queens and all of New York.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of a bill 
important to restoring honesty and integrity to the federal budget 
process. At the same time, the bill will continue to make important 
contributions to the future of rural and urban areas alike.
  H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (AIR 21), will make important and long overdue strides toward 
restoring the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund. As was the case 
with the Highway Trust Fund, the American People have been paying use 
taxes into what they thought was a dedicated trust fund, reserved for 
maintaining and improving airport capacity and safety. Unfortunately, 
the federal government for years has been less than honest in this 
portrayal. Passengers, aviators, and the airlines have paid billions of 
dollars to the federal government in the form of taxes on tickets, 
fuel, and air freight. They have expected that these funds go to keep 
the infrastructure repaired and in working condition, to improve the 
efficiency of air travel, and most importantly to ensure the safety of 
air travel.
  South Dakota's two busiest airports highlight this principle, 
painting the stark difference between investment and return. The 
passengers and other aviation users at Sioux Falls Regional Airport, 
the state's largest airport, paid approximately $8 million in aviation 
taxes to the federal government in fiscal year 1997; yet, the airport 
received only $1.3 million in Aviation Improvement Program (AIP) funds 
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The users of Rapid City 
Regional Airport paid in nearly $7 million and received $850,000 in 
return. While both receive other indirect contributions through the 
presence of FAA personnel and air traffic control operations, those 
contributions hardly make up for the difference between contributions 
to the trust and payments made to the airports.
  AIR 21 would bring us closer to closing that gap. As my colleagues 
may be aware, the bill would triple the AIP entitlements to all 
airports, taking the minimum grant level from today's level of $500,000 
to $1.5 million. For South Dakota, this tripling would provide $1.5 
million annually for the airports serving the cities of Aberdeen, 
Pierre, and Watertown. For Rapid City and Sioux Falls, their 
entitlements would respectively rise from about $832,000 to an 
estimated $2.5 million and from about $1.3 million to an estimated $3.9 
million. Thankfully, AIR 21 does not stop at just aiding the larger 
airports in South Dakota and across the nation.
  The bill also includes a number of important provisions that would 
assist our general aviation airports, which serve rural areas and 
smaller communities. Perhaps the most significant contribution the bill 
makes directly to our general aviation (GA) airports would come in the 
form of a new direct entitlement grant program of GA airports. These 
grants would be in addition to amounts provided to the states for 
distribution to the various GA airports. Thirty-five of South Dakota's 
GA airports would be guaranteed annual funding based upon a portion of 
their needs as identified by the FAA.
  For large and small alike, the needs are there. A recent study 
conducted by the General Accounting Office found that airport needs, 
including those eligible for spending through the AIP program and those 
that are not, exceed $10 billion annually.
  And for small and large alike, the positive economic impact of all 
airports is tremendous. For my state of South Dakota alone, airports 
directly contribute on an annual basis $52 million to the economy; 
produce $105 million in retail sales and $37 million in employment 
earnings; create a total economic impact (excluding tax revenues) of 
$164 million.
  With increased access to air service, one can clearly see that the 
economic activity would increase. It is no secret that one of the top 
factors businesses and companies consider is access to safe, reliable, 
and affordable transportation. In today's global economy, the emphasis 
on air transportation has become all the more important. The bill we 
have before us today would help communities improve their 
infrastructure to be able to accommodate growth and enhanced air access 
in order to create jobs and stay connected to markets around the nation 
and around the globe.
  The bill also protects the existing Essential Air Service (EAS) 
program. The EAS program, which provides assistance to carriers to 
serve those communities that otherwise would not be able to sustain 
commercial passenger service, has had less than stable financial 
support in recent years. Thanks to the assistance provided by Chairman 
Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar of the full committee and Chairman 
Duncan and Ranking Member Lipinski of the Aviation Subcommittee, I and 
other supporters of the program were able to ensure that the EAS 
program can continue to depend on at least $50 million annually to fund 
its activities. For the cities of Brookings and Yankton and others like 
them throughout the United States, the EAS program is their only air 
service link to the world. While deregulation of the industry may have 
produced benefits in the form of lower airfares for some regions of the 
country--particularly urban areas--smaller, more rural markets like 
these have seen dramatic changes in service levels. The EAS program 
helps ensure that when reasonable, service can remain in place.
  I also want to thank the leadership of the committee for their 
assistance on another important provision that will impact the 
Watertown Municipal Airport. Because of a provision included at my 
request, the Watertown airport would receive an AIP entitlement in 
fiscal year 2000.
  Enplanements at Watertown have been growing steadily in the last few 
years. 1997 marked the first year Watertown crossed the 10,000 
passenger threshold to qualify for the AIP minimum entitlement. 
Unfortunately, the airport, which is served by only one carrier, is 
expected to miss the 10,000 passenger mark for FY 1998 by only a few 
boardings. This shortfall can be directly attributable to a disruption 
in air service caused by an air carrier labor strike. Had the strike 
not occurred, it is clear that Watertown would have surpassed the 
minimum enplanement requirement. Sec. 105 recognizes the impact of this 
sudden disruption and ensures this community and similarly impacted 
communities across the nation continue to qualify for AIP entitlement 
funds.
  The Chairman also graciously accommodated a request I made for the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct a study of the Part 
135 aircraft industry. As my colleagues know, the on-demand charter 
industry is growing. For rural and urban areas, the ability of business 
travelers to be able to fly from one destination to another can make 
all the difference in the bottom line. Available and affordable charter 
services are a key to continued growth to a state like South Dakota 
that has limited commercial service.
  Despite its unique characteristics, the charter industry is regulated 
by the FAA in the same manner that other segments of the industry are. 
Though there is abundant information regarding the commercial industry, 
we do not presently have accurate and reliable information regarding 
the on-demand industry. The study included in this bill will help 
ensure FAA has the information it needs about the industry it 
regulates. The decisions regulators make that impact charter operators 
should be based upon facts about the industry and a clear understanding 
of the industry. The study ordered through this legislation would add 
to our knowledge of this important component of the aviation industry.
  The bill also proposes a number of important reforms that would help 
improve efficiency and competition. Among other issues, I commend the 
Chairman for moving a proposal forward that would improve access to 
Chicago O'Hare International Airport. I firmly believe that today's 
High Density Rule is outdated and acts only as an artificial barrier 
for competition for areas of the nation including South Dakota. 
Fortunately, AIR 21 would open access to this airport potentially for 
cities like Sioux Falls that might be able to provide competitive 
options for its travelers and profitable routes for air carriers that 
might not be able to access O'Hare today.
  Mr. Chairman, I recently organized a series of meetings with 
community leaders across South Dakota to discuss air service issues.

[[Page 12855]]

While they generally are pleased with the level of service they have 
today, they also believe there is room for improvement. When I outlined 
to them the investment, reform, and competition provisions included in 
AIR 21, these business and community leaders agreed that AIR 21 
represents an important step toward bringing South Dakota's communities 
closer to the rest of the world. I am pleased this bill is before us 
today and ask my colleagues to support its passage. AIR 21 will bring 
us closer to being honest with the tax payers of America on how their 
hard-earned dollars are used. It will bring us closer to allowing the 
free market to create access to affordable air service. It will also 
bring us one step closer to making the investments we need to ensure 
continued efficiency and safety of the traveling public.
  Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. Chairman, the economy of the United States is driven 
by the success and expansion of our nation's businesses.
  As representatives of the Federal Government, we have a 
responsibility to provide the infrastructure--the assets--that these 
businesses need to remain competitive.
  Our aviation system must have the resources and the ability to move 
people and products quickly and cheaply to all corners of the world.
  The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that the number of 
domestic airline passengers is expected to exceed one billion annually 
by the year 2010.
  The General Accounting Office, in their most recent report, has 
projected that annual airport needs alone will equal $10 billion just 
to meet these demands.
  Current available airport resources only equal $7 billion per year. 
That leaves a $3 billion annual funding gap!
  Mr. Chairman, the ``Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century,'' or AIR-21, provides an additional $2 billion through the 
Airport Improvement Program plus other funding opportunities to fill 
that gap and meet these needs!
  If we continue to follow current trends, we will exceed airport and 
runway capacity, and delays and congestion will increase accordingly.
  Passengers are already being left stranded at airports or on tarmacs 
waiting to fly.
  And in some cities, single airlines are dominating entire markets.
  I know this because these effects are already apparent in my 
congressional district and throughout upstate New York.
  Mr. Chairman, upstate New York has been identified as an area that 
needs improvement ,and has been labeled as a ``pocket of pain'' in the 
aviation system.
  The lack of sufficient federal funding has rendered many airports 
unable to handle the increased volume of traffic
  The airports that serve my district are in dire need of runway 
improvements, methods to enhance accessibility, machinery for snow 
removal, and most importantly, technology to ensure the safety of their 
air traffic control systems.
  In addition, existing airline access rules have stifled competition 
and caused passengers to pay unreasonably high air fares.
  AIR-21 will accomplish our goals of improving safety, fostering 
airline competition, and supplying those airports with increased 
funding to meet their individual needs.
  AIR-21 also contains guaranteed funding of up to $200,000 for general 
aviation airports with little or no commercial service.
  We must not forget the critical role that county and municipal 
airports play in the entire aviation system.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the accomplishments of this bill, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Passage of AIR-21 would reaffirm America's commitment to investing in 
assets to help our economy grow and our nation prosper.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in 
support of the manager's amendment to AIR-21 and an item in that 
amendment that was included at my request. Specifically, I strongly 
support a study to be conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration 
to evaluate the safety of using only automated weather observation 
systems for flight weather information.
  The Automated Surface Observing System, or ASOS, is a critical tool 
for observing and reporting flight weather information across the 
United States. Airports are ranked according to air traffic, occurrence 
of bad weather, distance to the next suitable airport, and other 
critical characteristics to assess specific needs. Most airports use 
the ASOS system and incorporate varying levels of human observation to 
augment the automatic system. However, those airports with low rankings 
are required to use only the ASOS system without support from human 
observers.
  The problem at Arcata-Eureka airport in my district, and in many 
areas across the country, is that the ASOS is not reliable enough to 
ensure flight safety at those airports with rapidly changing weather 
conditions. Those airports may not serve the number of aircraft 
necessary to warrant a higher weather service level, but the ASOS 
system still may not meet their safety needs. If ASOS is implemented 
according to the current rankings, many airports that regularly 
encounter sudden changes in visibility or wind conditions will be 
operating without the benefit of an on-site human observer.
  This study would require a re-evaluation of the airport weather 
rankings solely with regard to flight safety to guarantee reliable 
weather reporting at every airport nationwide. Mr. Chairman and 
members, I ask you to join me in supporting this amendment and improved 
safety at our nation's airports.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of AIR-21. I 
would like to commend Chairman Shuster, and Chairman Duncan and Ranking 
Member Oberstar and Ranking Member Lipinski for helping craft this 
notable piece of legislation. When we sign this bill into law, it will 
truly mark 1999 as the Year of Aviation. I believe this bill goes a 
long way toward ensuring that our U.S. aviation system will remain the 
best in the world as it does much to promote safe and more efficient 
air travel as we move into the next century.
  This year 655 million passengers will travel by air. In ten years, 
over a billion people will fly annually. Our current system--while the 
best in the world--is ill-equipped to handle the increase in passengers 
without a major commitment to making necessary improvements. Mr. 
Speaker, this landmark piece of legislation does just that.
  By taking the Airport and Airways Trust Fund off-budget, we are 
making a true commitment to improve our aviation infrastructure. The 
trust fund is funded by aviation ticket taxes, taxes you and I and 
every person who flies pay each time we purchase an airline ticket. The 
trust fund was established to maintain and improve our aviation system, 
not to manipulate the size of the federal deficit or overstate the size 
of the budget surplus. By taking the trust fund off-budget we will 
enable the trust fund surplus to be used for its intended purpose--
aviation.
  AIR-21 is good for airports. By providing over $19 billion for the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP), we ensure that capital improvement 
projects at our nation's airports will go forward. In addition, the 
bill provides funding for small and general aviation airports that will 
ensure an annual entitlement. For my district, this means that St. 
Louis-Parks Downtown Airport in Cahokia, St. Louis Regional in 
Bethalto, Cairo Airport, MidAmerica Airport and Southern Illinois 
Airport in Carbondale can all count on a federal investment. This will 
help these airports to continue to implement safety improvements and 
projects to increase efficiency.
  In parts of my district in Southern Illinois, we have limited air 
service. This bill will promote service to underserved markets. By 
improving capacity at large and small airports, the bill ensures more 
equitable competition in an industry where individual air carriers have 
market dominance over many communities. And by promoting access, the 
bill increases service which currently have little or no markets at 
all.
  AIR-21 ensures that our nation's aviation system remains the safest, 
most reliable and most efficient system in the world. It makes 
unprecedented investments in airports, runways and air traffic control 
systems, and, it does so in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Let's transform the Year of Aviation into the 21st Century of 
Aviation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 1000.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman. I strongly support two provisions in H.R. 
1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century--
requiring Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) on aircraft and 
conducting a study on helicopter noise--to increase the safety of air 
travel and decrease helicopter noise pollution.
  My support for ELTs stems from a tragedy involving two Connecticut 
residents. On December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 
31, of Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, 
Connecticut lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New 
Hampshire Airport.
  Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state and 
local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, a number of extremely 
well organized ground searches failed to locate the two gentlemen or 
the airplane.
  Their airplane did not have an ELT, a device which could have made a 
difference in saving the lives of these two men and sparing their 
families the grief of not finding the plane. ELTs play a vital role in 
search efforts, where timing is so critical in any rescue mission.
  Section 510 of H.R. 1000 requires ELTs on fixed-wing aircraft by 
January 1, 2002. This

[[Page 12856]]

provision provides limited exemptions, including planes used for 
agricultural purposes, manufacturing or testing, and air exhibition 
events.
  I am hopeful this provision will do much to increase the safety of 
air travel and no family will have to go through what the Schwartz and 
Hayes families underwent in the search for their loved ones.
  I also support the helicopter noise study contained in the manager's 
amendment to H.R. 1000. This provision directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a one-year study on the effects of 
nonmilitary helicopter noise on individuals and develop recommendations 
for noise reduction.
  The Secretary is required to consider the views of representatives 
from organizations with an interest in helicopter noise reduction and 
the helicopter industry.
  I have been working for many years with officials at the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) and local residents, to control noise 
from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. I understand frustration with 
aircraft noise. It is loud and disruptive.
  Noise pollution can be overwhelming, and diminishes quality of life. 
Exposure to excessive noise can lead to psychological and physiological 
damage, including hypertension, cardiovasular problems, and sleeping 
disorders.
  To combat noise pollution from helicopters it is imperative we 
understand how it is affecting individuals and how best to reduce it. 
That is why I support this one-year study to examine this problem.
  I thank Transportation Chairman Bud Shuster and Aviation 
Subcommittees Chairman John Duncan for their attention to ELTs and 
helicopter noise--important safety and quality of life provisions--in 
the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 1000, the AIR 21 legislation. This legislation is clearly needed 
to preserve the integrity of the Aviation Trust Fund and to provide 
adequate funding for our nation's airports.
  This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Shuster], the Chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan], the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee, for their extraordinary work in developing 
this bill and bringing it to the Floor. This Member appreciates their 
diligence, persistence, and hard work.
  This is an important bill for this Member's district, for the State 
of Nebraska, and for the nation. It addresses the country's growing 
aviation needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Quite simply, the bill 
recognizes the need to spend aviation taxes on the aviation system. 
During the 105th Congress we restored the trust with American drivers 
by ensuring that gas taxes will be spent on highway construction and 
maintenance. It is now time to ensure that this trust is restored with 
the flying public. No longer should the Aviation Trust Fund be misused 
and diverted.
  This bill will properly take the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget and 
ensure that it is used for aviation. it will result in reduced flight 
delays, improved air safety and greater competition. The American 
people deserve this legislation. They deserve it because they've 
already paid for it.
  Let's look past the distortions and misleading rhetoric and instead 
focus on the facts. This legislation will not jeopardize funding for 
other government programs. That's because the funding increases for 
aviation will come from the Aviation Trust Fund which has accumulated a 
large surplus.
  This Member is concerned about growing needs at our nation's 
airports. While more people are flying, airport improvements are simply 
not keeping pace. That's because the money that passengers are paying 
each time they fly are accumulating in the trust fund rather than being 
put to use at the airports.
  Unless we act now, the problems will only get worse. It is now 
anticipated that air travel will increase by more than 40 percent over 
the next ten years. This surge will place increased demands on an 
already overburdened aviation system. According to the General 
Accounting Office, we are underfunding airport infrastructure by at 
least $3 billion each year. Currently, the needs of smaller airports 
are twice as great as their funding sources. Fortunately, we have the 
ability to act now. We can improve the system without raising taxes or 
threatening the funding for other government programs or services. We 
must unlock the money in the Aviation Trust Fund and spend it for what 
it was intended.
  Airports across the country and the passengers who use them will all 
benefit from passage of this legislation. Large airports as well as 
small airports will be able to modernize and expand once the Trust Fund 
money is released.
  The increases in funding will be substantial and passengers will 
notice the results if we make these investments now. As an example, the 
Lincoln Municipal Airport in Nebraska currently receives an entitlement 
of about $1 million per year. Under H.R. 1000, this will increase to 
more than $3 million annually. Such an increase would greatly assist 
the airport with its planned $5 million runway project, which would 
replace the surface, comply with new safety requirements and provide 
new lighting. General aviation airports in Nebraska, in communities 
such as Beatrice, Falls City, Blair, Fremont, Norfolk, York, and 
Nebraska City, will also receive annual entitlements which will assist 
them with necessary projects.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1000. 
It will provide the American people with the aviation system that they 
have paid for the deserve.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
part A of House Report 106-185, is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1000

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendments to title 49, United States Code.
Sec. 3. Applicability.
Sec. 4. Administrator defined.

                TITLE I--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENTS

                          Subtitle A--Funding

Sec. 101. Airport improvement program.
Sec. 102. Airway facilities improvement program.
Sec. 103. FAA operations.
Sec. 104. AIP formula changes.
Sec. 105. Passenger facility fees.
Sec. 106. Budget submission.

                    Subtitle B--Airport Development

Sec. 121. Runway incursion prevention devices; emergency call boxes.
Sec. 122. Windshear detection equipment.
Sec. 123. Enhanced vision technologies.
Sec. 124. Pavement maintenance.
Sec. 125. Competition plans.
Sec. 126. Matching share.
Sec. 127. Letters of intent.
Sec. 128. Grants from small airport fund.
Sec. 129. Discretionary use of unused apportionments.
Sec. 130. Designating current and former military airports.
Sec. 131. Contract tower cost-sharing.
Sec. 132. Innovative use of airport grant funds.
Sec. 133. Aviation security program.
Sec. 134. Inherently low-emission airport vehicle pilot program.
Sec. 135. Technical amendments.
Sec. 136. Conveyances of airport property for public airports.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

Sec. 151. Treatment of certain facilities as airport-related projects.
Sec. 152. Terminal development costs.
Sec. 153. General facilities authority.
Sec. 154. Denial of airport access to certain air carriers.
Sec. 155. Construction of runways.
Sec. 156. Use of recycled materials.

                 TITLE II--AIRLINE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

    Subtitle A--Service to Airports Not Receiving Sufficient Service

Sec. 201. Access to high density airports.
Sec. 202. Funding for air carrier service to airports not receiving 
              sufficient service.
Sec. 203. Waiver of local contribution.
Sec. 204. Policy for air service to rural areas.
Sec. 205. Determination of distance from hub airport.

           Subtitle B--Regional Air Service Incentive Program

Sec. 211. Establishment of regional air service incentive program.

                    TITLE III--FAA MANAGEMENT REFORM

Sec. 301. Air traffic control system defined.
Sec. 302. Air Traffic Control Oversight Board.

[[Page 12857]]

Sec. 303. Chief Operating Officer.
Sec. 304. Federal Aviation Management Advisory Council.
Sec. 305. Environmental streamlining.
Sec. 306. Clarification of regulatory approval process.
Sec. 307. Independent study of FAA costs and allocations.

                      TITLE IV--FAMILY ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Responsibilities of National Transportation Safety Board.
Sec. 402. Air carrier plans.
Sec. 403. Foreign air carrier plans.
Sec. 404. Applicability of Death on the High Seas Act.

                            TITLE V--SAFETY

Sec. 501. Cargo collision avoidance systems deadlines.
Sec. 502. Records of employment of pilot applicants.
Sec. 503. Whistleblower protection for FAA employees.
Sec. 504. Safety risk mitigation programs.
Sec. 505. Flight operations quality assurance rules.
Sec. 506. Small airport certification.
Sec. 507. Life-limited aircraft parts.
Sec. 508. FAA may fine unruly passengers.
Sec. 509. Report on air transportation oversight system.
Sec. 510. Airplane emergency locators.

                   TITLE VI--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Sec. 601. Protection of employees providing air safety information.
Sec. 602. Civil penalty.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Duties and powers of Administrator.
Sec. 702. Public aircraft.
Sec. 703. Prohibition on release of offeror proposals.
Sec. 704. Multiyear procurement contracts.
Sec. 705. Federal Aviation Administration personnel management system.
Sec. 706. Nondiscrimination in airline travel.
Sec. 707. Joint venture agreement.
Sec. 708. Extension of war risk insurance program.
Sec. 709. General facilities and personnel authority.
Sec. 710. Implementation of article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention.
Sec. 711. Public availability of airmen records.
Sec. 712. Appeals of emergency revocations of certificates.
Sec. 713. Government and industry consortia.
Sec. 714. Passenger manifest.
Sec. 715. Cost recovery for foreign aviation services.
Sec. 716. Technical corrections to civil penalty provisions.
Sec. 717. Waiver under Airport Noise and Capacity Act.
Sec. 718. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority.
Sec. 719. Acquisition management system.
Sec. 720. Centennial of Flight Commission.
Sec. 721. Aircraft situational display data.
Sec. 722. Elimination of backlog of equal employment opportunity 
              complaints.
Sec. 723. Newport News, Virginia.
Sec. 724. Grant of easement, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 725. Regulation of Alaska guide pilots.
Sec. 726. Aircraft repair and maintenance advisory panel.
Sec. 727. Operations of air taxi industry.
Sec. 728. Sense of Congress concerning completion of comprehensive 
              national airspace redesign.
Sec. 729. Compliance with requirements.
Sec. 730. Aircraft noise levels at airports.
Sec. 731. FAA consideration of certain State proposals.

             TITLE VIII--NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings.
Sec. 803. Air tour management plans for national parks.
Sec. 804. Advisory group.
Sec. 805. Reports.
Sec. 806. Exemptions.
Sec. 807. Definitions.

                      TITLE IX--TRUTH IN BUDGETING

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Budgetary treatment of Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Sec. 903. Safeguards against deficit spending out of Airport and Airway 
              Trust Fund.
Sec. 904. Applicability.

            TITLE X--ADJUSTMENT OF TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 1001. Adjustment of trust fund authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Budget estimates.
Sec. 1003. Sense of Congress on fully offsetting increased aviation 
              spending.

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

Sec. 1101. Extension of expenditure authority.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of 
     law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall apply only to fiscal years 
     beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATOR DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

                TITLE I--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENTS

                          Subtitle A--Funding

     SEC. 101. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 is 
     amended by striking ``shall be'' the last place it appears 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``shall be--
       ``(1) $2,410,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(2) $2,475,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(3) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(4) $4,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(5) $4,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(6) $4,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended by 
     striking ``After'' and all that follows through ``1999,'' and 
     inserting ``After September 30, 2004,''.

     SEC. 102. AIRWAY FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) General Authorization and Appropriations.--Effective 
     September 30, 1999, section 48101(a) is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(2) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(3) $3,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004.''.
       (b) Universal Access Systems.--Section 48101 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Universal Access Systems.--Of the amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for fiscal year 2001, 
     $8,000,000 may be used for the voluntary purchase and 
     installation of universal access systems.''.

     SEC. 103. FAA OPERATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations From General Fund.--
     Effective September 30, 1999, section 106(k) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection) by striking ``the Administration'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``the Administration--
       ``(A) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $6,450,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(C) $6,886,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(D) $7,357,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(E) $7,860,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Authorized expenditures.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) for fiscal years 2001 through 2004--
       ``(A) $450,000 per fiscal year may be used for wildlife 
     hazard mitigation measures and management of the wildlife 
     strike database of the Federal Aviation Administration;
       ``(B) such sums as may be necessary may be used to fund an 
     office within the Federal Aviation Administration dedicated 
     to supporting infrastructure systems development for both 
     general aviation and the vertical flight industry;
       ``(C) such sums as may be necessary may be used to revise 
     existing terminal and en route procedures and instrument 
     flight rules to facilitate the takeoff, flight, and landing 
     of tiltrotor aircraft and to improve the national airspace 
     system by separating such aircraft from congested flight 
     paths of fixed-wing aircraft;
       ``(D) such sums as may be necessary may be used to 
     establish helicopter approach procedures using current 
     technologies (such as the Global Positioning System) to 
     support all-weather, emergency medical service for trauma 
     patients;
       ``(E) $3,000,000 per fiscal year may be used to implement 
     the 1998 airport surface operations safety action plan of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration;
       ``(F) $2,000,000 per fiscal year may be used to support a 
     university consortium established to provide an air safety 
     and security management certificate program, working 
     cooperatively with United States air carriers; except that 
     funds under this subparagraph--
       ``(i) may not be used for the construction of a building or 
     other facility; and
       ``(ii) may only be awarded on the basis of open 
     competition; and
       ``(G) such sums as may be necessary may be used to develop 
     or improve training programs (including model training 
     programs and curriculum) for security screeners at 
     airports.''; and
       (4) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection) and aligning such paragraph (1) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations From Trust Fund.--
     Section 48104 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsection 
     (c) as subsection (b);
       (2) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting 
     ``General Rule: Limitation on Trust Fund Amounts.--''; and
       (B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the amount''; and
       (ii) by striking ``for each of fiscal years 1994 through 
     1998'' and inserting ``for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 12858]]

       ``(c) Special Rule for Fiscal Years 2000-2004.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the amount appropriated under section 
     106(k) for any of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 less the 
     amount that would be appropriated, but for this subsection, 
     from the Trust Fund for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (a) for such fiscal year is greater than 
     the general fund cap, the amount appropriated from the Trust 
     Fund for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (a) for such fiscal year shall equal the amount appropriated 
     under section 106(k) for such fiscal year less the general 
     fund cap.
       ``(2) General fund cap defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `general fund cap' means that portion of the amounts 
     appropriated for programs of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for fiscal year 1998 that was derived from the 
     general fund of the Treasury.
       (c) Limitation on Obligating or Expending Amounts.--Section 
     48108 is amended by striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 104. AIP FORMULA CHANGES.

       (a) Discretionary Fund.--Section 47115 is amended by 
     striking subsections (g) and (h) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Priority for Letters of Intent.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall fulfill intentions to obligate under section 47110(e) 
     with amounts available in the fund established by subsection 
     (a) and, if such amounts are not sufficient for a fiscal 
     year, with amounts made available to carry out sections 
     47114(c)(1)(A), 47114(c)(2), 47114(d), and 47117(e) on a pro 
     rata basis.
       ``(2) Procedure.--Before apportioning funds under sections 
     47114(c)(1)(A), 47114(c)(2), 47114(d), and 47117(e) of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the amount of 
     funds that will be necessary to fulfill intentions to 
     obligate under section 47110(e) in such fiscal year. If such 
     amount is greater than the amount of funds that will be 
     available in the fund established by subsection (a) for such 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the amount to be 
     apportioned under such sections for such fiscal year on a pro 
     rata basis by an amount equal to the difference.''.
       (b) Amounts Apportioned to Sponsors.--
       (1) Amounts to be apportioned.--Effective October 1, 2000, 
     section 47114(c)(1) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking clauses (i) through (v) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $23.40 for each of the first 50,000 passenger 
     boardings at the airport during the prior calendar year;
       ``(ii) $15.60 for each of the next 50,000 passenger 
     boardings at the airport during the prior calendar year;
       ``(iii) $7.80 for each of the next 400,000 passenger 
     boardings at the airport during the prior calendar year;
       ``(iv) $1.95 for each of the next 500,000 passenger 
     boardings at the airport during the prior calendar year; and
       ``(v) $1.50 for each additional passenger boarding at the 
     airport during the prior calendar year.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$500,000 nor more 
     than $22,000,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
       (2) Special rules.--Section 47114(c)(1) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     apportion to an airport sponsor in a fiscal year an amount 
     equal to the amount apportioned to that sponsor in the 
     previous fiscal year if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) passenger boardings at the airport were less than 
     10,000 in the calendar year used to calculate the 
     apportionment;
       ``(ii) the airport had at least 10,000 passenger boardings 
     in the calendar year prior to the calendar year used to 
     calculate the apportionment; and
       ``(iii) the cause of the decrease in passenger boardings 
     was a temporary but significant interruption in service by an 
     air carrier to that airport due to an employment action, 
     natural disaster, or other event unrelated to the demand for 
     air transportation at the airport.
       ``(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     apportion on the first day of the first fiscal year following 
     the official opening of a new airport with scheduled 
     passenger air transportation an amount equal to the minimum 
     amount set forth in subparagraph (B) to the sponsor of such 
     airport.''.
       (c) Cargo Only Airports.--Section 47114(c)(2)(A) is amended 
     by striking ``2.5 percent'' and inserting ``3 percent''.
       (d) Entitlement for General Aviation Airports.--Effective 
     October 1, 2000, section 47114(d) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``to States'' and 
     inserting ``for General Aviation Airports'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``(1) In this'' and 
     inserting ``(1) Definitions.--In this'';
       (3) by indenting paragraph (1) and aligning paragraph (1) 
     (and its subparagraphs) with paragraph (2) (as amended by 
     paragraph (2) of this subsection); and
       (4) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Apportionments.--The Secretary shall apportion 20 
     percent of the amount subject to apportionment for each 
     fiscal year as follows:
       ``(A) To each airport, excluding primary airports but 
     including reliever and nonprimary commercial service 
     airports, in States the lesser of--
       ``(i) $200,000; or
       ``(ii) \1/5\ of the most recently published estimate of the 
     5-year costs for airport improvement for the airport, as 
     listed in the national plan of integrated airport systems 
     developed by the Federal Aviation Administration under 
     section 47103.
       ``(B) Any remaining amount to States as follows:
       ``(i) 0.62 percent of the remaining amount to Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
       ``(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (3), 49.69 percent 
     of the remaining amount for airports, excluding primary 
     airports but including reliever and nonprimary commercial 
     service airports, in States not named in clause (i) in the 
     proportion that the population of each of those States bears 
     to the total population of all of those States.
       ``(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (3), 49.69 percent 
     of the remaining amount for airports, excluding primary 
     airports but including reliever and nonprimary commercial 
     service airports, in States not named in clause (i) in the 
     proportion that the area of each of those States bears to the 
     total area of all of those States.''.
       (e) Use of Apportionments for Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 
     Hawaii.--Section 47114(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Special rule.--An amount apportioned under paragraph 
     (2) to Alaska, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii for airports in such 
     State may be made available by the Secretary for any public 
     airport in those respective jurisdictions.''.
       (f) Use of State-Apportioned Funds for System Planning.--
     Section 47114(d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Integrated airport system planning.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (2), funds made available under this subsection may 
     be used for integrated airport system planning that 
     encompasses 1 or more primary airports.''.
       (g) Flexibility in Pavement Construction Standards.--
       Section 47114(d) is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) Flexibility in pavement construction standards.--The 
     Secretary may permit the use of State highway specifications 
     for airfield pavement construction using funds made available 
     under this subsection at nonprimary airports serving aircraft 
     that do not exceed 60,000 pounds gross weight if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) safety will not be negatively affected; and
       ``(B) the life of the pavement will not be shorter than it 
     would be if constructed using Federal Aviation Administration 
     standards.''.
       (h) Grants for Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.--
     Section 47117(e)(1) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``31 percent'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``34 percent''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``At least'' and all 
     that follows through ``sponsors of current'' and inserting 
     ``At least 4 percent to sponsors of current''.
       (i) Supplemental Apportionment for Alaska.--Effective 
     October 1, 2000, section 47114(e) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Alternative'' 
     and inserting ``Supplemental'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Instead of apportioning amounts for 
     airports in Alaska under'' and inserting ``In general.--
     Notwithstanding'';
       (B) by striking ``those airports'' and inserting ``airports 
     in Alaska''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence ``and by increasing the amount so determined for 
     each of those airports by 3 times'';
       (3) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Authority for 
     discretionary grants.--'' before ``This subsection'';
       (4) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Airports eligible for funds.--An amount apportioned 
     under this subsection may be used for any public airport in 
     Alaska.''; and
       (5) by indenting paragraph (1) and aligning paragraph (1) 
     (and its subparagraphs) and paragraph (2) with paragraph (3) 
     (as amended by paragraph (4) of this subsection).
       (j) Repeal of Apportionment Limitation on Commercial 
     Service Airports in Alaska.--Section 47117 is amended by 
     striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsections (g) 
     and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.

     SEC. 105. PASSENGER FACILITY FEES.

       (a) Authority To Impose Higher Fee.--Section 40117(b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     authorize under this section an eligible agency to impose a 
     passenger facility fee in whole dollar amounts of more than 
     $3 on each paying passenger of an air carrier or foreign air 
     carrier boarding an aircraft at an airport the agency 
     controls to finance an eligible airport-related project, 
     including making payments for debt service on indebtedness 
     incurred to carry out the project, if the Secretary finds--
       ``(A) that the project will make a significant contribution 
     to improving air safety and security, increasing competition 
     among air carriers, reducing current or anticipated 
     congestion, or reducing the impact of aviation noise on 
     people living near the airport;
       ``(B) that the project cannot be paid for from funds 
     reasonably expected to be available for the programs referred 
     to in section 48103; and
       ``(C) that the amount to be imposed is not more than twice 
     that which may be imposed under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Limitation on Approval of Certain Applications.--
     Section 40117(d) is amended--

[[Page 12859]]

       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) in the case of an application to impose a fee of more 
     than $3 for a surface transportation or terminal project, the 
     agency has made adequate provision for financing the airside 
     needs of the airport, including runways, taxiways, aprons, 
     and aircraft gates.''.
       (c) Reducing Apportionments.--Section 47114(f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``An amount'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--An amount'';
       (2) by striking ``an amount equal to'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``an amount equal to--
       ``(A) in the case of a fee of $3 or less, 50 percent of the 
     projected revenues from the fee in the fiscal year but not by 
     more than 50 percent of the amount that otherwise would be 
     apportioned under this section; and
       ``(B) in the case of a fee of more than $3, 75 percent of 
     the projected revenues from the fee in the fiscal year but 
     not by more than 75 percent of the amount that otherwise 
     would be apportioned under this section.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Effective date of reduction.--A reduction in an 
     apportionment required by paragraph (1) shall not take effect 
     until the first fiscal year following the year in which the 
     collection of the fee imposed under section 40117 is 
     begun.''.

     SEC. 106. BUDGET SUBMISSION.

       The Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives a copy of the annual budget estimates of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, including line item 
     justifications, at the same time the annual budget estimates 
     are submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives.

                    Subtitle B--Airport Development

     SEC. 121. RUNWAY INCURSION PREVENTION DEVICES; EMERGENCY CALL 
                   BOXES.

       (a) Policy.--Section 47101(a)(11) is amended by inserting 
     ``(including integrated in-pavement lighting systems for 
     runways and taxiways and other runway and taxiway incursion 
     prevention devices)'' after ``technology''.
       (b) Maximum Use of Safety Facilities.--Section 47101(f) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9); and
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) runway and taxiway incursion prevention devices, 
     including integrated in-pavement lighting systems for runways 
     and taxiways.''.
       (c) Inclusion of Universal Access Systems and Emergency 
     Call Boxes as Airport Development.--Section 47102(3)(B) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``and universal access systems,'' and 
     inserting ``, universal access systems, and emergency call 
     boxes,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and integrated in-pavement lighting 
     systems for runways and taxiways and other runway and taxiway 
     incursion prevention devices'' before the semicolon at the 
     end; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of clause 
     (iii) the following: ``, including closed circuit weather 
     surveillance equipment''.

     SEC. 122. WINDSHEAR DETECTION EQUIPMENT.

       Section 47102(3)(B) is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (v);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) windshear detection equipment; and''.

     SEC. 123. ENHANCED VISION TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study of the 
     feasibility of requiring United States airports to install 
     enhanced vision technologies to replace or enhance 
     conventional landing light systems over the 10-year period 
     following the date of completion of such study.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), together with such recommendations as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       (c) Inclusion of Installation as Airport Development.--
     Section 47102 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(B) (as amended by this Act) by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(viii) enhanced vision technologies that are certified by 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     that are intended to replace or enhance conventional landing 
     light systems.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Enhanced vision technologies.--The term `enhanced 
     vision technologies' means laser guidance, ultraviolet 
     guidance, infrared, and cold cathode technologies.''.
       (d) Certification.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a schedule for deciding whether or not to certify 
     laser guidance equipment for use as approach lighting at 
     United States airports and of cold cathode lighting equipment 
     for use as runway and taxiway lighting at United States 
     airports and as lighting at United States heliports.

     SEC. 124. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE.

       (a) Repeal of Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 47132 is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 47132.
       (b) Eligibility as Airport Development.--Section 47102(3) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) routine work to preserve and extend the useful life 
     of runways, taxiways, and aprons at airports that are not 
     primary airports, under guidelines issued by the 
     Administrator.''.

     SEC. 125. COMPETITION PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 47106 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(f) Competition Plans.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--Beginning in fiscal year 2001, no 
     passenger facility fee may be approved for a covered airport 
     under section 40117 and no grant may be made under this 
     subchapter for a covered airport unless the airport has 
     submitted to the Secretary a written competition plan in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Contents.--A competition plan under this subsection 
     shall include information on the availability of airport 
     gates and related facilities, leasing and sub-leasing 
     arrangements, gate-use requirements, patterns of air service, 
     gate-assignment policy, financial constraints, airport 
     controls over air- and ground-side capacity, whether the 
     airport intends to build or acquire gates that would be used 
     as common facilities, and airfare levels (as compiled by the 
     Department of Transportation) compared to other large 
     airports.
       ``(3) Covered airport defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `covered airport' means a commercial service airport--
       ``(A) that has more than .25 percent of the total number of 
     passenger boardings each year at all such airports; and
       ``(B) at which 1 or 2 air carriers control more than 50 
     percent of the passenger boardings.''.
       (b) Cross Reference.--Section 40117 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(j) Competition Plans.--Beginning in fiscal year 2001, no 
     eligible agency may impose a passenger facility fee under 
     this section with respect to a covered airport (as such term 
     is defined in section 47106(f)) unless the agency has 
     submitted to the Secretary a written competition plan in 
     accordance with such section. This subsection does not apply 
     to passenger facility fees in effect before the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 126. MATCHING SHARE.

       Section 47109(a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) not more than 90 percent for a project funded by a 
     grant issued to and administered by a State under section 
     47128, relating to the State block grant program;'';
       (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3) (as so 
     redesignated);
       (4) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) (as 
     so redesignated) and inserting ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) 100 percent in fiscal year 2001 for any project--
       ``(A) at an airport other than a primary airport; or
       ``(B) at a primary airport having less than .05 percent of 
     the total number of passenger boardings each year at all 
     commercial service airports.''.

     SEC. 127. LETTERS OF INTENT.

       Section 47110(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2)(C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) that meets the criteria of section 47115(d) and, if 
     for a project at a commercial service airport having at least 
     0.25 percent of the boardings each year at all such airports, 
     the Secretary decides will enhance system-wide airport 
     capacity significantly.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Letters of intent.--The Secretary may not require an 
     eligible agency to impose a passenger facility fee under 
     section 40117 in order to obtain a letter of intent under 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 128. GRANTS FROM SMALL AIRPORT FUND.

       (a) Set-Aside for Meeting Safety Terms in Airport Operating 
     Certificates.--Section 47116 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(e) Set-Aside for Meeting Safety Terms in Airport 
     Operating Certificates.--In the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the effective date of regulations issued to carry out 
     section 44706(b) with respect to airports described in 
     section 44706(a)(2), and in each of the next 4 fiscal years, 
     the lesser of $15,000,000 or 20 percent of the amounts that 
     would otherwise be distributed to sponsors of airports under 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be used to assist the airports in 
     meeting the terms established by the regulations. If the 
     Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a finding that 
     all the terms established by the regulations have been met, 
     this subsection shall cease to be effective as of the date of 
     such publication.''.
       (b) Notification of Source of Grant.--Section 47116 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Notification of Source of Grant.--Whenever the 
     Secretary makes a grant under this section, the Secretary 
     shall notify the recipient of the grant, in writing, that the 
     source of the grant is from the small airport fund.''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 47116(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In making'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Construction of new runways.--In making'';

[[Page 12860]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Airport development for turbine powered aircraft.--In 
     making grants to sponsors described in subsection (b)(1), the 
     Secretary shall give priority consideration to airport 
     development projects to support operations by turbine powered 
     aircraft, if the non-Federal share of the project is at least 
     40 percent.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of paragraph (1) (as 
     designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection).

     SEC. 129. DISCRETIONARY USE OF UNUSED APPORTIONMENTS.

       Section 47117(f) (as redesignated by section 104(j) of this 
     Act) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Discretionary Use of Apportionments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     Secretary finds that all or part of an amount of an 
     apportionment under section 47114 is not required during a 
     fiscal year to fund a grant for which the apportionment may 
     be used, the Secretary may use during such fiscal year the 
     amount not so required to make grants for any purpose for 
     which grants may be made under section 48103. The finding may 
     be based on the notifications that the Secretary receives 
     under section 47105(f) or on other information received from 
     airport sponsors.
       ``(2) Restoration of apportionments.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the fiscal year for which a finding 
     is made under paragraph (1) with respect to an apportionment 
     is not the last fiscal year of availability of the 
     apportionment under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     restore to the apportionment an amount equal to the amount of 
     the apportionment used under paragraph (1) for a 
     discretionary grant whenever a sufficient amount is made 
     available under section 48103.
       ``(B) Period of availability.--If restoration under this 
     paragraph is made in the fiscal year for which the finding is 
     made or the succeeding fiscal year, the amount restored shall 
     be subject to the original period of availability of the 
     apportionment under subsection (b). If the restoration is 
     made thereafter, the amount restored shall remain available 
     in accordance with subsection (b) for the original period of 
     availability of the apportionment, plus the number of fiscal 
     years during which a sufficient amount was not available for 
     the restoration.
       ``(3) Newly available amounts.--
       ``(A) Restored amounts to be unavailable for discretionary 
     grants.--Of an amount newly available under section 48103 of 
     this title, an amount equal to the amounts restored under 
     paragraph (2) shall not be available for discretionary grant 
     obligations under section 47115.
       ``(B) Use of remaining amounts.--Subparagraph (A) does not 
     impair the Secretary's authority under paragraph (1), after a 
     restoration under paragraph (2), to apply all or part of a 
     restored amount that is not required to fund a grant under an 
     apportionment to fund discretionary grants.
       ``(4) Limitations on obligations apply.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to 
     incur grant obligations under section 47104 for a fiscal year 
     in an amount greater than the amount made available under 
     section 48103 for such obligations for such fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 130. DESIGNATING CURRENT AND FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 47118 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``12'' and inserting ``12 
     for fiscal year 2000 and 20 for each fiscal year 
     thereafter'';
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) through (f) as subsections (c) through (e), 
     respectively;
       (3) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``47117(e)(1)(E)'' and inserting 
     ``47117(e)(1)(B)'';
       (B) by striking ``5-fiscal-year periods'' and inserting 
     ``periods, each not to exceed 5 fiscal years,''; and
       (C) by striking ``each such subsequent 5-fiscal-year 
     period'' and inserting ``each such subsequent period''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Designation of General Aviation Airport.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, at least 
     3 of the airports designated under subsection (a) shall be 
     general aviation airports that were former military 
     installations closed or realigned under a section referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1).''.
       (b) Terminal Building Facilities.--Section 47118(d) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) is amended 
     by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,000,000''.
       (c) Eligibility of Air Cargo Terminals.--Section 47118(e) 
     (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection heading by striking ``and Hangars'' and 
     inserting ``Hangars, and Air Cargo Terminals'';
       (2) by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``hangars'' the following: ``and air 
     cargo terminals of an area that is 50,000 square feet or 
     less''.

     SEC. 131. CONTRACT TOWER COST-SHARING.

       Section 47124(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Contract air traffic control tower pilot program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program to contract for air traffic control services at Level 
     I air traffic control towers, as defined by the Administrator 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration, that do not qualify 
     for the Contract Tower program established under subsection 
     (a) and continued under paragraph (1) (hereafter in this 
     paragraph referred to as the `Contract Tower Program').
       ``(B) Program components.--In carrying out the pilot 
     program established under subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(i) utilize for purposes of cost-benefit analyses, 
     current, actual, site-specific data, forecast estimates, or 
     airport master plan data provided by a facility owner or 
     operator and verified by the Administrator;
       ``(ii) approve for participation only facilities willing to 
     fund a pro rata share of the operating costs of the air 
     traffic control tower to achieve a 1 to 1 benefit-to-cost 
     ratio, as required for eligibility under the Contract Tower 
     Program; and
       ``(iii) approve for participation no more than 2 facilities 
     willing to fund up to 50 percent, but not less than 25 
     percent, of construction costs for an air traffic control 
     tower built by the airport operator and for each of such 
     facilities the Federal share of construction cost does not 
     exceed $1,100,000.
       ``(C) Priority.--In selecting facilities to participate in 
     the program under this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
     give priority to the following:
       ``(i) Air traffic control towers that are participating in 
     the Contract Tower Program but have been notified that they 
     will be terminated from such program because the 
     Administration has determined that the benefit-to-cost ratio 
     for their continuation in such program is less than 1.0.
       ``(ii) Air traffic control towers that the Administrator 
     determines have a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least .85.
       ``(iii) Air traffic control towers of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration that are closed as a result of the air traffic 
     controllers strike in 1981.
       ``(iv) Air traffic control towers that are located at 
     airports or points at which an air carrier is receiving 
     compensation under the essential air service program under 
     this chapter.
       ``(v) Air traffic control towers located at airports that 
     are prepared to assume partial responsibility for maintenance 
     costs.
       ``(vi) Air traffic control towers that are located at 
     airports with safety or operational problems related to 
     topography, weather, runway configuration, or mix of 
     aircraft.
       ``(D) Costs exceeding benefits.--If the costs of operating 
     an air traffic tower under the pilot program established 
     under this paragraph exceed the benefits, the airport sponsor 
     or State or local government having jurisdiction over the 
     airport shall pay the portion of the costs that exceed such 
     benefit.
       ``(E) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 106(k), not to exceed $6,000,000 per fiscal year may 
     be used to carry out this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 132. INNOVATIVE USE OF AIRPORT GRANT FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 471 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 47135. Innovative financing techniques

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     approve applications for not more than 25 airport development 
     projects for which grants received under this subchapter may 
     be used for innovative financing techniques. Such projects 
     shall be located at airports that each year have less than 
     .25 percent of the total number of passenger boardings each 
     year at all commercial service airports.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of grants made under this 
     section shall be to provide information on the benefits and 
     difficulties of using innovative financing techniques for 
     airport development projects.
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) No guarantees.--In no case shall the implementation 
     of an innovative financing technique under this section be 
     used in a manner giving rise to a direct or indirect 
     guarantee of any airport debt instrument by the United States 
     Government.
       ``(2) Types of techniques.--In this section, innovative 
     financing techniques are limited to--
       ``(A) payment of interest;
       ``(B) commercial bond insurance and other credit 
     enhancement associated with airport bonds for eligible 
     airport development; and
       ``(C) flexible non-Federal matching requirements.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``47135. Innovative financing techniques.''.

     SEC. 133. AVIATION SECURITY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 471 is further 
     amended by adding the following new section:

     ``Sec. 47136. Aviation security program

       ``(a) General Authority.--To improve security at public 
     airports in the United States, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall carry out not less than one project to 
     test and evaluate innovative aviation security systems and 
     related technology.
       ``(b) Priority.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall give the highest priority to a request from 
     an eligible sponsor for a grant to undertake a project that--
       ``(1) evaluates and tests the benefits of innovative 
     aviation security systems or related technology, including 
     explosives detection systems, for the purpose of improving 
     aviation security, including aircraft physical security, 
     access control, and passenger and baggage screening; and
       ``(2) provides testing and evaluation of airport security 
     systems and technology in an operational, test bed 
     environment.
       ``(c) Matching Share.--Notwithstanding section 47109, the 
     United States Government's share of allowable project costs 
     for a project under this section shall be 100 percent.

[[Page 12861]]

       ``(d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may establish 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate for carrying out a project under this section, 
     including terms and conditions relating to the form and 
     content of a proposal for a project, project assurances, and 
     schedule of payments.
       ``(e) Eligible Sponsor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible sponsor' means a nonprofit corporation composed of 
     a consortium of public and private persons, including a 
     sponsor of a primary airport, with the necessary engineering 
     and technical expertise to successfully conduct the testing 
     and evaluation of airport and aircraft related security 
     systems.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts made 
     available to the Secretary under section 47115 in a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make available not less than 
     $5,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``47136. Aviation security program.''.

     SEC. 134. INHERENTLY LOW-EMISSION AIRPORT VEHICLE PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 471 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 47137. Inherently low-emission airport vehicle pilot 
       program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     carry out a pilot program at not more than 10 public-use 
     airports under which the sponsors of such airports may use 
     funds made available under section 48103 for use at such 
     airports to carry out inherently low-emission vehicle 
     activities. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, inherently low-emission vehicle activities shall 
     for purposes of the pilot program be treated as eligible for 
     assistance under this subchapter.
       ``(b) Location in Air Quality Nonattainment Areas.--A 
     public-use airport shall be eligible for participation in the 
     pilot program only if the airport is located in an air 
     quality nonattainment area (as defined in section 171(2) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501(d)).
       ``(c) Selection Criteria.--In selecting from among 
     applicants for participation in the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall give priority consideration to applicants 
     that will achieve the greatest air quality benefits measured 
     by the amount of emissions reduced per dollar of funds 
     expended under the pilot program.
       ``(d) United States Government's Share.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this subchapter, the United States 
     Government's share of the costs of a project carried out 
     under the pilot program shall be 50 percent.
       ``(e) Maximum Amount.--Not more than $2,000,000 may be 
     expended under the pilot program at any single public-use 
     airport.
       ``(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report containing an evaluation of the effectiveness 
     of the pilot program.
       ``(g) Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle Activity Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `inherently low-emission vehicle 
     activity' means--
       ``(1) the construction of infrastructure facilities 
     necessary for the use of vehicles that are certified as 
     inherently low-emission vehicles under title 40 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations, that are labeled in accordance with 
     section 88.312-93(c) of such title, and that are located or 
     primarily used at public-use airports;
       ``(2) the payment of that portion of the cost of acquiring 
     such vehicles that exceeds the cost of acquiring other 
     vehicles that would be used for the same purpose; or
       ``(3) the acquisition of technological equipment necessary 
     for the use of vehicles described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``47137. Inherently low-emission airport vehicle pilot program.''.

     SEC. 135. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Continuation of Project Funding.--Section 47108 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Change in Airport Status.--In the event that the 
     status of a primary airport changes to a nonprimary airport 
     at a time when a terminal development project under a 
     multiyear agreement under subsection (a) is not yet 
     completed, the project shall remain eligible for funding from 
     discretionary funds under section 47115 at the funding level 
     and under the terms provided by the agreement, subject to the 
     availability of funds.''.
       (b) Passenger Facility Fee Waiver for Certain Class of 
     Carriers or for Service to Airports in Isolated 
     Communities.--Section 40117(i) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) may permit a public agency to request that collection 
     of a passenger facility fee be waived for--
       ``(A) passengers enplaned by any class of air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier if the number of passengers enplaned by 
     the carrier in the class constitutes not more than 1 percent 
     of the total number of passengers enplaned annually at the 
     airport at which the fee is imposed; or
       ``(B) passengers traveling to an airport--
       ``(i) that has fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings each 
     year and receives scheduled passenger service; and
       ``(ii) in a community which has a population of less than 
     10,000 and is not connected by a land highway to the land-
     connected National Highway System within a State.''.

     SEC. 136. CONVEYANCES OF AIRPORT PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC 
                   AIRPORTS.

       (a) Project Grant Assurances.--Section 47107(h) is amended 
     by inserting ``(including an assurance with respect to 
     disposal of land by an airport owner or operator under 
     subsection (c)(2)(B) without regard to whether or not the 
     assurance or grant was made before December 29, 1987)'' after 
     ``1987''.
       (b) Conveyances of United States Government Land.--Section 
     47125(a) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Secretary may only release an option of the United States for 
     a reversionary interest under this subsection after providing 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment. The Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register any decision of the 
     Secretary to release a reversionary interest and the reasons 
     for the decision.''.
       (c) Requests by Public Agencies.--Section 47151 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Requests by Public Agencies.--Except with respect to 
     a request made by another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the executive branch of the United States 
     Government, such a department, agency, or instrumentality 
     shall give priority consideration to a request made by a 
     public agency (as defined in section 47102) for surplus 
     property described in subsection (a) for use at a public 
     airport.''.
       (d) Notice and Public Comment; Publication of Decisions.--
     Section 47153(a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, after providing 
     notice and an opportunity for public comment,'' after ``if 
     the Secretary decides''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Publication of decisions.--The Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register any decision to waive a term 
     under paragraph (1) and the reasons for the decision.''.
       (e) Considerations.--Section 47153 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(c) Considerations.--In deciding whether to waive a term 
     required by section 47152 or add another term, the Secretary 
     shall consider the current and future needs of the users of 
     the airport.''.
       (f) References to Gifts.--Chapter 471 is amended--
       (1) in section 47151--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``give'' and inserting ``convey to''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2) by striking ``gift'' and inserting 
     ``conveyance'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``giving'' and inserting ``conveying''; and
       (ii) by striking ``gift'' and inserting ``conveyance''; and
       (C) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in the subsection heading by striking ``Given'' and 
     inserting ``Conveyed''; and
       (ii) by striking ``given'' and inserting ``conveyed'';
       (2) in section 47152--
       (A) in the section heading by striking ``gifts'' and 
     inserting ``conveyances''; and
       (B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``gift'' and inserting ``conveyance'';
       (3) in section 47153(a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``gift'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``conveyance''; and
       (B) by striking ``given'' and inserting ``conveyed''; and
       (4) in the analysis for such chapter by striking the item 
     relating to section 47152 and inserting the following:

``47152. Terms of conveyances.''.

                       Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 151. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FACILITIES AS AIRPORT-RELATED 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 40117(a)(3)(E) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' and inserting a comma; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``(including structural foundations and floor 
     systems, exterior building walls and load-bearing interior 
     columns or walls, windows, door and roof systems, and 
     building utilities (including heating, air conditioning, 
     ventilation, plumbing, and electrical service)), and aircraft 
     fueling facilities adjacent to the gate.''.

     SEC. 152. TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

       (a) With Respect to Passenger Facility Charges.--Section 
     40117(a)(3) is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) for costs of terminal development referred to in 
     subparagraph (B) incurred after August 1, 1986, at an airport 
     that did not have more than .25 percent of the total annual 
     passenger boardings in the United States in the most recent 
     calendar year for which data is available and at which total 
     passenger boardings declined by at least 16 percent between 
     calendar year 1989 and calendar year 1997;''.
       (b) Repaying Borrowed Money.--Section 47119(a) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--

[[Page 12862]]

       (A) by striking ``0.05'' and inserting ``0.25''; and
       (B) by striking ``between January 1, 1992, and October 31, 
     1992,'' and inserting ``between August 1, 1986, and September 
     30, 1990, or between June 1, 1991, and October 31, 1992,''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``an airport 
     development project outside the terminal area at that 
     airport'' and inserting ``any needed airport development 
     project affecting safety, security, or capacity''.
       (c) Nonhub Airports.--Section 47119(c) is amended by 
     striking ``0.05'' and inserting ``0.25''.
       (d) Nonprimary Commercial Service Airports.--Section 47119 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Determination of Passenger Boarding at Commercial 
     Service Airport.--For the purpose of determining whether an 
     amount may be distributed for a fiscal year from the 
     discretionary fund in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(A) to 
     a commercial service airport, the Secretary shall make the 
     determination of whether or not a public airport is a 
     commercial service airport on the basis of the number of 
     passenger boardings and type of air service at the public 
     airport in the calendar year that includes the first day of 
     such fiscal year or the preceding calendar year, whichever is 
     more beneficial to the airport.''.

     SEC. 153. GENERAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY.

       (a) Continuation of ILS Inventory Program.--Section 
     44502(a)(4)(B) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 1999 through 2004''; and
       (2) by inserting ``under new or existing contracts'' after 
     ``including acquisition''.
       (b) Loran-C Navigation Facilities.--Section 44502(a) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Maintenance and upgrade of loran-c navigation 
     facilities.--The Secretary shall maintain and upgrade Loran-C 
     navigation facilities throughout the transition period to 
     satellite-based navigation.''.

     SEC. 154. DENIAL OF AIRPORT ACCESS TO CERTAIN AIR CARRIERS.

       Section 44706 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Included Charter Air Transportation.--For the 
     purposes of subsection (a)(2), a scheduled passenger 
     operation includes charter air transportation for which the 
     general public is provided in advance a schedule containing 
     the departure location, departure time, and arrival location 
     of the flights.
       ``(h) Authority To Preclude Scheduled Passenger 
     Operations.--The Administrator shall permit an airport that 
     will be subject to certification under subsection (a)(2) to 
     preclude scheduled passenger operations (including public 
     charter operations described in subsection (g)) at the 
     airport if the airport notifies the Administrator, in 
     writing, that it does not intend to obtain an airport 
     operating certificate.''.

     SEC. 155. CONSTRUCTION OF RUNWAYS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law that specifically 
     restricts the number of runways at a single international 
     airport, the Secretary of Transportation may obligate funds 
     made available under chapters 471 and 481 of title 49, United 
     States Code, for any project to construct a new runway at 
     such airport, unless this section is expressly repealed.

     SEC. 156. USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study of the 
     use of recycled materials (including recycled pavements, 
     waste materials, and byproducts) in pavement used for 
     runways, taxiways, and aprons and the specification standards 
     in tests necessary for the use of recycled materials in such 
     pavement. The primary focus of the study shall be on the long 
     term physical performance, safety implications, and 
     environmental benefits of using recycled materials in 
     aviation pavement.
       (b) Contracting.--The Administrator may carry out the study 
     under this section by entering into a contract with a 
     university of higher education with expertise necessary to 
     carry out the study.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     this section together with recommendations concerning the use 
     of recycled materials in aviation pavement.
       (d) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 106(k), not to exceed $1,500,000 in the aggregate may 
     be used to carry out this section.

                 TITLE II--AIRLINE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

    Subtitle A--Service to Airports Not Receiving Sufficient Service

     SEC. 201. ACCESS TO HIGH DENSITY AIRPORTS.

       (a) Repeal of Slot Rule for Certain Airports.--Effective 
     March 1, 2000, the requirements of subparts K and S of part 
     93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, are of no force 
     and effect at an airport other than Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport. The Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized to undertake appropriate actions to effectuate an 
     orderly termination of these requirements.
       (b) Slot Exemptions for Service to Reagan National 
     Airport.--Section 41714 is amended by striking subsections 
     (e) and (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Slots for Airports Not Receiving Sufficient 
     Service.--
       ``(1) Exemptions.--Notwithstanding chapter 491, the 
     Secretary may by order grant exemptions from the requirements 
     under subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (pertaining to slots at high density 
     airports), to enable air carriers to provide nonstop air 
     transportation using jet aircraft that comply with the stage 
     3 noise levels of part 36 of such title 14 between Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport that had 
     less than 2,000,000 enplanements in the most recent year for 
     which such enplanement data is available or between Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport and an airport that does 
     not have nonstop transportation to Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport using such aircraft on the date on which the 
     application for an exemption is filed.
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Maximum number of exemptions.--No more than 2 
     exemptions per hour and no more than 6 exemptions per day may 
     be granted under this subsection for slots at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport.
       ``(B) Maximum distance of flights.--An exemption may be 
     granted under this subsection for a slot at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport only if the flight utilizing such 
     slot begins or ends within 1,250 miles of the Airport and a 
     stage 3 aircraft is used for such flight.
       ``(3) Application.--An air carrier interested in an 
     exemption under this subsection shall submit to the Secretary 
     an application for such exemption. No application may be 
     submitted to the Secretary before the last day of the 30-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(4) Deadline for decision.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall make a decision with 
     regard to granting an exemption under this subsection on or 
     before the 120th day following the date of the application 
     for the exemption. If the Secretary does not make the 
     decision on or before such 120th day, the air carrier 
     applying for the service may provide such service until the 
     Secretary makes the decision or the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration determines that providing 
     such service would have an adverse effect on air safety.
       ``(5) Period of effectiveness.--An exemption granted under 
     this subsection shall remain in effect only while the air 
     carrier for whom the exemption is granted continues to 
     provide the nonstop air transportation for which the 
     exemption is granted.
       ``(f) Treatment of Certain Commuter Air Carriers.--The 
     Secretary shall treat all commuter air carriers that have 
     cooperative agreements, including code share agreements with 
     other air carriers, equally for determining eligibility for 
     exemptions under this section regardless of the form of the 
     corporate relationship between the commuter air carrier and 
     the other air carrier.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Effective March 1, 2000, 
     section 41714 (as amended by subsection (b) of this section) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c), (g), and (i);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (h) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively;
       (3) in the heading for subsection (a) (as so redesignated) 
     by striking ``Special Rules for''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (c) (as so redesignated) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Slot Defined.--The term `slot' means a reservation 
     for an instrument flight rule takeoff or landing by an air 
     carrier or an aircraft in air transportation.''.

     SEC. 202. FUNDING FOR AIR CARRIER SERVICE TO AIRPORTS NOT 
                   RECEIVING SUFFICIENT SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 41742(a) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000'' and inserting ``$60,000,000''.
       (b) Funding for Small Community Air Service.--Section 
     41742(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b) Funding for Small Community Air Service.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, from moneys credited to the account established under 
     section 45303(a), including the funds derived from fees 
     imposed under the authority contained in section 45301(a)--
       ``(A) not to exceed $50,000,000 for each fiscal year 
     beginning after September 30, 1999, shall be used to carry 
     out the small community air service program under this 
     subchapter; and
       ``(B) not to exceed $10,000,000 for such fiscal year shall 
     be used--
       ``(i) for assisting an air carrier to subsidize service to 
     and from an underserved airport for a period not to exceed 3 
     years;
       ``(ii) for assisting an underserved airport to obtain jet 
     aircraft service (and to promote passenger use of that 
     service) to and from the underserved airport; and
       ``(iii) for assisting an underserved airport to implement 
     such other measures as the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with such airport, considers appropriate to 
     improve air service both in terms of the cost of such service 
     to consumers and the availability of such service, including 
     improving air service through marketing and promotion of air 
     service and enhanced utilization of airport facilities.
       ``(2) Rural air safety.--Any funds that are made available 
     by paragraph (1) for a fiscal

[[Page 12863]]

     year and that the Secretary determines will not be obligated 
     or expended before the last day of such fiscal year shall be 
     available to the Administrator for use under this subchapter 
     in improving rural air safety at airports with less than 
     100,000 annual boardings.
       ``(3) Allocation of additional funding.--If, for a fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 1999, more than 
     $60,000,000 is made available under subsection (a) to carry 
     out the small community air service program, \1/2\ of the 
     amounts in excess of $60,000,000 shall be used for the 
     purposes specified in paragraph (1)(B), in addition to 
     amounts made available for such purposes under paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       ``(4) Use of unobligated amounts.--Any funds made available 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for the small community air service 
     program for a fiscal year that the Secretary determines will 
     not be obligated or expended before the last day of such 
     fiscal year shall be available for use by the Secretary for 
     the purposes described in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available under paragraph (1), of the amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to section 106(k) for a fiscal year 
     beginning after September 30, 2000, not to exceed $15,000,000 
     may be used--
       ``(A) to provide assistance to an air carrier to subsidize 
     service to and from an underserved airport for a period not 
     to exceed 3 years;
       ``(B) to provide assistance to an underserved airport to 
     obtain jet aircraft service (and to promote passenger use of 
     that service) to and from the underserved airport; and
       ``(C) to provide assistance to an underserved airport to 
     implement such other measures as the Secretary, in 
     consultation with such airport, considers appropriate to 
     improve air service both in terms of the cost of such service 
     to consumers and the availability of such service, including 
     improving air service through marketing and promotion of air 
     service and enhanced utilization of airport facilities.
       ``(6) Priority criteria for assisting airports not 
     receiving sufficient service.--In providing assistance to 
     airports under paragraphs (1)(B) and (5), the Administrator 
     shall give priority to those airports for which a community 
     will provide, from local sources (other than airport 
     revenues), a portion of the cost of the activity to be 
     assisted.
       ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Underserved airport.--The term `underserved airport' 
     means a nonhub airport or small hub airport (as such terms 
     are defined in section 41731) that--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines is not receiving sufficient 
     air carrier service; or
       ``(ii) has unreasonably high airfares.
       ``(B) Unreasonably high airfare.--The term `unreasonably 
     high airfare', as used with respect to an airport, means that 
     the airfare listed in the table entitled `Top 1,000 City-Pair 
     Market Summarized by City', contained in the Domestic Airline 
     Fares Consumer Report of the Department of Transportation, 
     for one or more markets for which the airport is a part of 
     has an average yield listed in such table that is more than 
     19 cents.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 417 is amended--
       (1) in the heading for section 41742 by striking 
     ``Essential'' and inserting ``Small community'';
       (2) in each of subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 
     41742 by striking ``essential air'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``small community air''; and
       (3) in the analysis for such chapter by striking the item 
     relating to section 41742 and inserting the following:

``41742. Small community air service authorization.''.

     SEC. 203. WAIVER OF LOCAL CONTRIBUTION.

       Section 41736(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Paragraph (4) shall not apply to any place for which a 
     proposal was approved or that was designated as eligible 
     under this section in the period beginning on October 1, 
     1991, and ending on December 31, 1997.''.

     SEC. 204. POLICY FOR AIR SERVICE TO RURAL AREAS.

       Section 40101(a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(16) ensuring that consumers in all regions of the United 
     States, including those in small communities and rural and 
     remote areas, have access to affordable, regularly scheduled 
     air service.''.

     SEC. 205. DETERMINATION OF DISTANCE FROM HUB AIRPORT.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall not deny assistance 
     with respect to a place under subchapter II of chapter 417 of 
     title 49, United States Code, solely on the basis that the 
     place is located within 70 highway miles of a hub airport (as 
     defined by section 41731 of such title) if the most commonly 
     used highway route between the place and the hub airport 
     exceeds 70 miles.

           Subtitle B--Regional Air Service Incentive Program

     SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL AIR SERVICE INCENTIVE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 417 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

        ``SUBCHAPTER III--REGIONAL AIR SERVICE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

     ``Sec. 41761. Purpose

       ``The purpose of this subchapter is to improve service by 
     jet aircraft to underserved markets by providing assistance, 
     in the form of Federal credit instruments, to commuter air 
     carriers that purchase regional jet aircraft for use in 
     serving those markets.

     ``Sec. 41762. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Air carrier.--The term `air carrier' means any air 
     carrier holding a certificate of public convenience and 
     necessity issued by the Secretary of Transportation under 
     section 41102.
       ``(2) Aircraft purchase.--The term `aircraft purchase' 
     means the purchase of commercial transport aircraft, 
     including spare parts normally associated with the aircraft.
       ``(3) Capital reserve subsidy amount.--The term `capital 
     reserve subsidy amount' means the amount of budget authority 
     sufficient to cover estimated long-term cost to the United 
     States Government of a Federal credit instrument, calculated 
     on a net present value basis, excluding administrative costs 
     and any incidental effects on government receipts or outlays 
     in accordance with provisions of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq).
       ``(4) Commuter air carrier.--The term `commuter air 
     carrier' means an air carrier that primarily operates 
     aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger seating 
     capacity of 75 or less in accordance with published flight 
     schedules.
       ``(5) Federal credit instrument.--The term `Federal credit 
     instrument' means a secured loan, loan guarantee, or line of 
     credit authorized to be made under this subchapter.
       ``(6) Financial obligation.--The term `financial 
     obligation' means any note, bond, debenture, or other debt 
     obligation issued by an obligor in connection with the 
     financing of an aircraft purchase, other than a Federal 
     credit instrument.
       ``(7) Lender.--The term `lender' means any non-Federal 
     qualified institutional buyer (as defined by section 
     230.144A(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     successor regulation) known as Rule 144A(a) of the Security 
     and Exchange Commission and issued under the Security Act of 
     1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.)), including--
       ``(A) a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 
     4974(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is a 
     qualified institutional buyer; and
       ``(B) a governmental plan (as defined in section 414(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is a qualified 
     institutional buyer.
       ``(8) Line of credit.--The term `line of credit' means an 
     agreement entered into by the Secretary with an obligor under 
     section 41763(d) to provide a direct loan at a future date 
     upon the occurrence of certain events.
       ``(9) Loan guarantee.--The term `loan guarantee' means any 
     guarantee or other pledge by the Secretary under section 
     41763(c) to pay all or part of any of the principal of and 
     interest on a loan or other debt obligation issued by an 
     obligor and funded by a lender.
       ``(10) New entrant air carrier.--The term `new entrant air 
     carrier' means an air carrier that has been providing air 
     transportation according to a published schedule for less 
     than 5 years, including any person that has received 
     authority from the Secretary to provide air transportation 
     but is not providing air transportation.
       ``(11) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' means an 
     airport that each year has less than .05 percent of the total 
     annual boardings in the United States.
       ``(12) Obligor.--The term `obligor' means a party primarily 
     liable for payment of the principal of or interest on a 
     Federal credit instrument, which party may be a corporation, 
     partnership, joint venture, trust, or governmental entity, 
     agency, or instrumentality.
       ``(13) Regional jet aircraft.--The term `regional jet 
     aircraft' means a civil aircraft--
       ``(A) powered by jet propulsion; and
       ``(B) designed to have a maximum passenger seating capacity 
     of not less than 30 nor more than 75.
       ``(14) Secured loan.--The term `secured loan' means a 
     direct loan funded by the Secretary in connection with the 
     financing of an aircraft purchase under section 41763(b).
       ``(15) Small hub airport.--The term `small hub airport' 
     means an airport that each year has at least .05 percent, but 
     less than .25 percent, of the total annual boardings in the 
     United States.
       ``(16) Underserved market.--The term `underserved market' 
     means a passenger air transportation market (as defined by 
     the Secretary) that--
       ``(A) is served (as determined by the Secretary) by a 
     nonhub airport or a small hub airport;
       ``(B) is not within a 40-mile radius of an airport that 
     each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual 
     boardings in the United States; and
       ``(C) the Secretary determines does not have sufficient air 
     service.

     ``Sec. 41763. Federal credit instruments

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to this section, the Secretary 
     of Transportation may enter into agreements with 1 or more 
     obligors to make available Federal credit instruments, the 
     proceeds of which shall be used to finance aircraft 
     purchases.
       ``(b) Secured Loans.--
       ``(1) Terms and limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--A secured loan under this section with 
     respect to an aircraft purchase shall be on such terms and 
     conditions and contain such covenants, representatives, 
     warranties, and requirements (including requirements for 
     audits) as the Secretary determines appropriate.

[[Page 12864]]

       ``(B) Maximum amount.--No secured loan may be made under 
     this section--
       ``(i) that extends to more than 50 percent of the purchase 
     price (including the value of any manufacturer credits, post-
     purchase options, or other discounts) of the aircraft, 
     including spare parts, to be purchased; or
       ``(ii) that, when added to the remaining balance on any 
     other Federal credit instruments made under this subchapter, 
     provides more than $100,000,000 of outstanding credit to any 
     single obligor.
       ``(C) Final payment date.--The final payment on the secured 
     loan shall not be due later than 18 years after the date of 
     execution of the loan agreement.
       ``(D) Subordination.--The secured loan may be subordinate 
     to claims of other holders of obligations in the event of 
     bankruptcy, insolvency, or liquidation of the obligor as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(E) Fees.--The Secretary may establish fees at a level 
     sufficient to cover all or a portion of the costs to the 
     United States Government of making a secured loan under this 
     section. The proceeds of such fees shall be deposited in an 
     account to be used by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     administering the program established under this subchapter 
     and shall be available upon deposit until expended.
       ``(2) Repayment.--
       ``(A) Schedule.--The Secretary shall establish a repayment 
     schedule for each secured loan under this section based on 
     the projected cash flow from aircraft revenues and other 
     repayment sources.
       ``(B) Commencement.--Scheduled loan repayments of principal 
     and interest on a secured loan under this section shall 
     commence no later than 3 years after the date of execution of 
     the loan agreement.
       ``(3) Prepayment.--
       ``(A) Use of excess revenue.--After satisfying scheduled 
     debt service requirements on all financial obligations and 
     secured loans and all deposit requirements under the terms of 
     any trust agreement, bond resolution, or similar agreement 
     securing financial obligations, the secured loan may be 
     prepaid at anytime without penalty.
       ``(B) Use of proceeds of refinancing.--The secured loan may 
     be prepaid at any time without penalty from proceeds of 
     refinancing from non-Federal funding sources.
       ``(c) Loan Guarantees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A loan guarantee under this section with 
     respect to a loan made for an aircraft purchase shall be made 
     in such form and on such terms and conditions and contain 
     such covenants, representatives, warranties, and requirements 
     (including requirements for audits) as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Maximum amount.--No loan guarantee shall be made 
     under this section--
       ``(A) that extends to more than the unpaid interest and 50 
     percent of the unpaid principal on any loan;
       ``(B) that, for any loan or combination of loans, extends 
     to more than 50 percent of the purchase price (including the 
     value of any manufacturer credits, post-purchase options, or 
     other discounts) of the aircraft, including spare parts, to 
     be purchased with the loan or loan combination;
       ``(C) on any loan with respect to which terms permit 
     repayment more than 15 years after the date of execution of 
     the loan; or
       ``(D) that, when added to the remaining balance on any 
     other Federal credit instruments made under this subchapter, 
     provides more than $100,000,000 of outstanding credit to any 
     single obligor.
       ``(3) Fees.--The Secretary may establish fees at a level 
     sufficient to cover all or a portion of the costs to the 
     United States Government of making a loan guarantee under 
     this section. The proceeds of such fees shall be deposited in 
     an account to be used by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     administering the program established under this subchapter 
     and shall be available upon deposit until expended.
       ``(d) Lines of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may enter into agreements to make 
     available lines of credit to 1 or more obligors in the form 
     of direct loans to be made by the Secretary at future dates 
     on the occurrence of certain events for any aircraft purchase 
     selected under this section.
       ``(2) Terms and limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--A line of credit under this subsection 
     with respect to an aircraft purchase shall be on such terms 
     and conditions and contain such covenants, representatives, 
     warranties, and requirements (including requirements for 
     audits) as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(B) Maximum amount.--
       ``(i) Total amount.--The amount of any line of credit shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price (including the 
     value of any manufacturer credits, post-purchase options, or 
     other discounts) of the aircraft, including spare parts.
       ``(ii) 1-year draws.--The amount drawn in any year shall 
     not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the line of 
     credit.
       ``(C) Draws.--Any draw on the line of credit shall 
     represent a direct loan.
       ``(D) Period of availability.--The line of credit shall be 
     available not more than 5 years after the aircraft purchase 
     date.
       ``(E) Rights of third-party creditors.--
       ``(i) Against united states government.--A third-party 
     creditor of the obligor shall not have any right against the 
     United States Government with respect to any draw on the line 
     of credit.
       ``(ii) Assignment.--An obligor may assign the line of 
     credit to 1 or more lenders or to a trustee on the lender's 
     behalf.
       ``(F) Subordination.--A direct loan under this subsection 
     may be subordinate to claims of other holders of obligations 
     in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, or liquidation of the 
     obligor as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(G) Fees.--The Secretary may establish fees at a level 
     sufficient to cover all of a portion of the costs to the 
     United States Government of providing a line of credit under 
     this subsection. The proceeds of such fees shall be deposited 
     in an account to be used by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     administering the program established under this subchapter 
     and shall be available upon deposit until expended.
       ``(3) Repayment.--
       ``(A) Schedule.--The Secretary shall establish a repayment 
     schedule for each direct loan under this subsection.
       ``(B) Commencement.--Scheduled loan repayments of principal 
     or interest on a direct loan under this subsection shall 
     commence no later than 3 years after the date of the first 
     draw on the line of credit and shall be repaid, with 
     interest, not later than 18 years after the date of the first 
     draw.
       ``(e) Risk Assessment.--Before entering into an agreement 
     under this section to make available a Federal credit 
     instrument, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, shall determine an 
     appropriate capital reserve subsidy amount for the Federal 
     credit instrument based on such credit evaluations as the 
     Secretary deems necessary.
       ``(f) Conditions.--Subject to subsection (h), the Secretary 
     may only make a Federal credit instrument available under 
     this section if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the aircraft to be purchased with the Federal credit 
     instrument is a regional jet aircraft needed to improve the 
     service and efficiency of operation of a commuter air carrier 
     or new entrant air carrier;
       ``(2) the commuter air carrier or new entrant air carrier 
     enters into a legally binding agreement that requires the 
     carrier to use the aircraft to provide service to underserved 
     markets; and
       ``(3) the prospective earning power of the commuter air 
     carrier or new entrant air carrier, together with the 
     character and value of the security pledged, including the 
     collateral value of the aircraft being acquired and any other 
     assets or pledges used to secure the Federal credit 
     instrument, furnish--
       ``(A) reasonable assurances of the air carrier's ability 
     and intention to repay the Federal credit instrument within 
     the terms established by the Secretary--
       ``(i) to continue its operations as an air carrier; and
       ``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary, to continue its operations as an air carrier 
     between the same route or routes being operated by the air 
     carrier at the time of the issuance of the Federal credit 
     instrument; and
       ``(B) reasonable protection to the United States.
       ``(g) Limitation on Combined Amount of Federal Credit 
     Instruments.--The Secretary shall not allow the combined 
     amount of Federal credit instruments available for any 
     aircraft purchase under this section to exceed--
       ``(1) 50 percent of the cost of the aircraft purchase; or
       ``(2) $100,000,000 for any single obligor.
       ``(h) Requirement.--Subject to subsection (i), no Federal 
     credit instrument may be made under this section for the 
     purchase of any regional jet aircraft that does not comply 
     with the stage 3 noise levels of part 36 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999.
       ``(i) Other Limitations.--No Federal credit instrument 
     shall be made by the Secretary under this section for the 
     purchase of a regional jet aircraft unless the commuter air 
     carrier or new entrant air carrier enters into a legally 
     binding agreement that requires the carrier to provide 
     scheduled passenger air transportation to the underserved 
     market for which the aircraft is purchased for a period of 
     not less than 36 consecutive months after the date that 
     aircraft is placed in service.

     ``Sec. 41764. Use of Federal facilities and assistance

       ``(a) Use of Federal Facilities.--To permit the Secretary 
     of Transportation to make use of such expert advice and 
     services as the Secretary may require in carrying out this 
     subchapter, the Secretary may use available services and 
     facilities of other agencies and instrumentalities of the 
     United States Government--
       ``(1) with the consent of the appropriate Federal 
     officials; and
       ``(2) on a reimbursable basis.
       ``(b) Assistance.--The head of each appropriate department 
     or agency of the United States Government shall exercise the 
     duties and powers of that head in such manner as to assist in 
     carrying out the policy specified in section 41761.
       ``(c) Oversight.--The Secretary shall make available to the 
     Comptroller General of the United States such information 
     with respect to any Federal credit instrument made under this 
     subchapter as the Comptroller General may require to carry 
     out the duties of the Comptroller General under chapter 7 of 
     title 31.

     ``Sec. 41765. Administrative expenses

       ``In carrying out this subchapter, the Secretary shall use 
     funds made available by appropriations to the Department of 
     Transportation

[[Page 12865]]

     for the purpose of administration, in addition to the 
     proceeds of any fees collected under this subchapter, to 
     cover administrative expenses of the Federal credit 
     instrument program under this subchapter.

     ``Sec. 41766. Funding.

       ``Of the amounts appropriated under section 106(k) for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, such sums as may be 
     necessary may be used to carry out this subchapter, including 
     administrative expenses.

     ``Sec. 41767. Termination

       ``(a) Authority To Issue Federal Credit Instruments.--The 
     authority of the Secretary of Transportation to issue Federal 
     credit instruments under section 41763 shall terminate on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     subchapter.
       ``(b) Continuation of Authority To Administer Program for 
     Existing Federal Credit Instruments.--On and after the 
     termination date, the Secretary shall continue to administer 
     the program established under this subchapter for Federal 
     credit instruments issued under this subchapter before the 
     termination date until all obligations associated with such 
     instruments have been satisfied.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``SUBCHAPTER III--REGIONAL AIR SERVICE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

``Sec.
``41761. Purpose.
``41762. Definitions.
``41763. Federal credit instruments.
``41764. Use of Federal facilities and assistance.
``41765. Administrative expenses.
``41766. Funding.
``41767. Termination.''.

                    TITLE III--FAA MANAGEMENT REFORM

     SEC. 301. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM DEFINED.

       Section 40102(a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (41) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (42), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) `air traffic control system' means the combination of 
     elements used to safely and efficiently monitor, direct, 
     control, and guide aircraft in the United States and United 
     States-assigned airspace, including--
       ``(A) allocated electromagnetic spectrum and physical, 
     real, personal, and intellectual property assets making up 
     facilities, equipment, and systems employed to detect, track, 
     and guide aircraft movement;
       ``(B) laws, regulations, orders, directives, agreements, 
     and licenses;
       ``(C) published procedures that explain required actions, 
     activities, and techniques used to ensure adequate aircraft 
     separation; and
       ``(D) trained personnel with specific technical 
     capabilities to satisfy the operational, engineering, 
     management, and planning requirements for air traffic 
     control.''.

     SEC. 302. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL OVERSIGHT BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 113. Air Traffic Control Oversight Board

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Transportation an `Air Traffic Control 
     Oversight Board' (in this section referred to as the 
     `Oversight Board').
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) Composition.--The Oversight Board shall be composed 
     of 9 members, as follows:
       ``(A) Six members shall be individuals who are not 
     otherwise Federal officers or employees and who are appointed 
     by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.
       ``(B) One member shall be the Secretary of Transportation 
     or, if the Secretary so designates, the Deputy Secretary of 
     the Transportation.
       ``(C) One member shall be the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration.
       ``(D) One member shall be an individual who is appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, from among individuals who are the leaders of their 
     respective unions of air traffic control system employees.
       ``(2) Qualifications and terms.--
       ``(A) Qualifications.--Members of the Oversight Board 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) shall--
       ``(i) have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the 
     public interest;
       ``(ii) be citizens of the United States; and
       ``(iii) be appointed without regard to political 
     affiliation and solely on the basis of their professional 
     experience and expertise in 1 or more of the following areas:

       ``(I) Management of large service organizations.
       ``(II) Customer service.
       ``(III) Management of large procurements.
       ``(IV) Information and communications technology.
       ``(V) Organizational development.
       ``(VI) Labor relations.

     At least 3 members of the Oversight Board appointed under 
     paragraph (1)(A) should have knowledge of, or a background 
     in, aviation. At least one of such members should have a 
     background in managing large organizations successfully. In 
     the aggregate, such members should collectively bring to bear 
     expertise in all of the areas described in subclauses (I) 
     through (VI) of clause (iii).
       ``(B) Prohibitions.--No member of the Oversight Board 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) may--
       ``(i) have a pecuniary interest in, or own stock in or 
     bonds of, an aviation or aeronautical enterprise;
       ``(ii) engage in another business related to aviation or 
     aeronautics; or
       ``(iii) be a member of any organization that engages, as a 
     substantial part of its activities, in activities to 
     influence aviation-related legislation.
       ``(C) Terms for air traffic control representatives.--A 
     member appointed under paragraph (1)(D) shall be appointed 
     for a term of 3 years, except that the term of such 
     individual shall end whenever the individual no longer meets 
     the requirements of paragraph (1)(D).
       ``(D) Terms for nonfederal officers or employees.--A member 
     appointed under paragraph (1)(A) shall be appointed for a 
     term of 5 years, except that of the members first appointed 
     under paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) 2 members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years;
       ``(ii) 2 members shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; 
     and
       ``(iii) 2 members shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.
       ``(E) Reappointment.--An individual may not be appointed 
     under paragraph (1)(A) to more than two 5-year terms on the 
     Oversight Board.
       ``(F) Vacancy.--Any vacancy on the Oversight Board shall be 
     filled in the same manner as the original appointment. Any 
     member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the 
     expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was 
     appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of that term.
       ``(3) Ethical considerations.--
       ``(A) Financial disclosure.--During the entire period that 
     an individual appointed under subparagraph (A) or (D) of 
     paragraph (1) is a member of the Oversight Board, such 
     individual shall be treated as serving as an officer or 
     employee referred to in section 101(f) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 for purposes of title I of such Act, 
     except that section 101(d) of such Act shall apply without 
     regard to the number of days of service in the position.
       ``(B) Restrictions on post-employment.--For purposes of 
     section 207(c) of title 18, an individual appointed under 
     subparagraph (A) or (D) of paragraph (1) shall be treated as 
     an employee referred to in section 207(c)(2)(A)(i) of such 
     title during the entire period the individual is a member of 
     the Board, except that subsections (c)(2)(B) and (f) of 
     section 207 of such title shall not apply.
       ``(C) Waiver.--At the time the President nominates an 
     individual for appointment as a member of the Oversight Board 
     under paragraph (1)(D), the President may waive for the term 
     of the member any appropriate provision of chapter 11 of 
     title 18, to the extent such waiver is necessary to allow the 
     member to participate in the decisions of the Board while 
     continuing to serve as a full-time Federal employee or a 
     representative of employees. Any such waiver shall not be 
     effective unless a written intent of waiver to exempt such 
     member (and actual waiver language) is submitted to the 
     Senate with the nomination of such member.
       ``(4) Quorum.--Five members of the Oversight Board shall 
     constitute a quorum. A majority of members present and voting 
     shall be required for the Oversight Board to take action.
       ``(5) Removal.--Any member of the Oversight Board appointed 
     under subparagraph (A) or (D) of paragraph (1) may be removed 
     for cause by the President.
       ``(6) Claims.--
       ``(A) In general.--A member of the Oversight Board 
     appointed under subparagraph (A) or (D) of paragraph (1) 
     shall have no personal liability under Federal law with 
     respect to any claim arising out of or resulting from an act 
     or omission by such member within the scope of service as a 
     member of the Oversight Board.
       ``(B) Effect on other law.--This paragraph shall not be 
     construed--
       ``(i) to affect any other immunity or protection that may 
     be available to a member of the Oversight Board under 
     applicable law with respect to such transactions;
       ``(ii) to affect any other right or remedy against the 
     United States under applicable law; or
       ``(iii) to limit or alter in any way the immunities that 
     are available under applicable law for Federal officers and 
     employees.
       ``(c) General Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Oversight.--The Oversight Board shall oversee the 
     Federal Aviation Administration in its administration, 
     management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the air 
     traffic control system.
       ``(2) Confidentiality.--The Oversight Board shall ensure 
     that appropriate confidentiality is maintained in the 
     exercise of its duties.
       ``(d) Specific Responsibilities.--The Oversight Board shall 
     have the following specific responsibilities:
       ``(1) Strategic plans.--To review, approve, and monitor 
     achievements under a strategic plan of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for the air traffic control system, including 
     the establishment of--
       ``(A) a mission and objectives;
       ``(B) standards of performance relative to such mission and 
     objectives, including safety, efficiency, and productivity; 
     and
       ``(C) annual and long-range strategic plans.
       ``(2) Modernization and improvement.--To review and 
     approve--

[[Page 12866]]

       ``(A) methods of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     accelerate air traffic control modernization and improvements 
     in aviation safety related to air traffic control; and
       ``(B) procurements of air traffic control equipment by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration in excess of $100,000,000.
       ``(3) Operational plans.--To review the operational 
     functions of the Federal Aviation Administration, including--
       ``(A) plans for modernization of the air traffic control 
     system;
       ``(B) plans for increasing productivity or implementing 
     cost-saving measures; and
       ``(C) plans for training and education.
       ``(4) Management.--To--
       ``(A) review and approve the Administrator's appointment of 
     a Chief Operating Officer under section 106(r);
       ``(B) review the Administrator's selection, evaluation, and 
     compensation of senior executives of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration who have program management responsibility 
     over significant functions of the air traffic control system;
       ``(C) review and approve the Administrator's plans for any 
     major reorganization of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     that would impact on the management of the air traffic 
     control system;
       ``(D) review and approve the Administrator's cost 
     accounting and financial management structure and 
     technologies to help ensure efficient and cost-effective air 
     traffic control operation; and
       ``(E) review the performance and cooperation of managers 
     responsible for major acquisition projects, including the 
     ability of the managers to meet schedule and budget targets.
       ``(5) Budget.--To--
       ``(A) review and approve the budget request of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration related to the air traffic control 
     system prepared by the Administrator;
       ``(B) submit such budget request to the Secretary of 
     Transportation; and
       ``(C) ensure that the budget request supports the annual 
     and long-range strategic plans.
     The Secretary shall submit the budget request referred to in 
     paragraph (5)(B) for any fiscal year to the President who 
     shall submit such request, without revision, to the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     Appropriations of the Senate, together with the President's 
     annual budget request for the Federal Aviation Administration 
     for such fiscal year.
       ``(e) Reporting of Overturning of Board Decisions.--If the 
     Secretary or Administrator overturns a decision of the 
     Oversight Board, the Secretary or Administrator, as 
     appropriate shall report such action to the President, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate.
       ``(f) Board Personnel Matters.--
       ``(1) Compensation of members.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each member of the Oversight Board who--
       ``(i) appointed under subsection (b)(1)(A); or
       ``(ii) appointed under subsection (b)(1)(D) and is not 
     otherwise a Federal officer or employee,
     shall be compensated at a rate of $30,000 per year. All other 
     members shall serve without compensation for such service.
       ``(B) Chairperson.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the 
     chairperson of the Oversight Board shall be compensated at a 
     rate of $50,000 per year.
       ``(2) Travel expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The members of the Oversight Board shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to attend 
     meetings of the Oversight Board and, with the advance 
     approval of the chairperson of the Oversight Board, while 
     otherwise away from their homes or regular places of business 
     for purposes of duties as a member of the Oversight Board.
       ``(B) Report.--The Oversight Board shall include in its 
     annual report under subsection (g)(3)(A) information with 
     respect to the travel expenses allowed for members of the 
     Oversight Board under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Staff.--
       ``(A) In general.--The chairperson of the Oversight Board 
     may appoint and terminate any personnel that may be necessary 
     to enable the Board to perform its duties.
       ``(B) Detail of government employees.--Upon request of the 
     chairperson of the Oversight Board, a Federal agency shall 
     detail a United States Government employee to the Oversight 
     Board without reimbursement. Such detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       ``(4) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The chairperson of the Oversight Board may procure temporary 
     and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5.
       ``(g) Administrative Matters.--
       ``(1) Chair.--
       ``(A) Term.--The members of the Oversight Board shall elect 
     for a 2-year term a chairperson from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(B) Powers.--Except as otherwise provided by a majority 
     vote of the Oversight Board, the powers of the chairperson 
     shall include--
       ``(i) establishing committees;
       ``(ii) setting meeting places and times;
       ``(iii) establishing meeting agendas; and
       ``(iv) developing rules for the conduct of business.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The Oversight Board shall meet at least 
     quarterly and at such other times as the chairperson 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(3) Reports.--
       ``(A) Annual.--The Oversight Board shall each year report 
     with respect to the conduct of its responsibilities under 
     this title to the President, the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.
       ``(B) Additional report.--Upon a determination by the 
     Oversight Board under subsection (c)(1) that the organization 
     and operation of the Federal Aviation Administration's air 
     traffic control system are not allowing the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to carry out its mission, the Oversight Board 
     shall report such determination to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       ``(C) Comptroller general's report.--Not later than April 
     30, 2004, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the success of the Oversight Board in 
     improving the performance of the air traffic control 
     system.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``113. Air Traffic Control Oversight Board.''.

       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Initial nominations to air traffic control oversight 
     board.--The President shall submit the initial nominations of 
     the air traffic control oversight board to the Senate not 
     later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Effect on actions prior to appointment of oversight 
     board.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     invalidate the actions and authority of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration prior to the appointment of the members of the 
     Air Traffic Control Oversight Board.

     SEC. 303. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER.

       Section 106 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Chief Operating Officer.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Appointment.--There shall be a Chief Operating 
     Officer for the air traffic control system to be appointed by 
     the Administrator, with approval of the Air Traffic Control 
     Oversight Board established by section 113. The Chief 
     Operating Officer shall report directly to the Administrator 
     and shall be subject to the authority of the Administrator.
       ``(B) Qualifications.--The Chief Operating Officer shall 
     have a demonstrated ability in management and knowledge of or 
     experience in aviation.
       ``(C) Term.--The Chief Operating Officer shall be appointed 
     for a term of 5 years.
       ``(D) Removal.--The Chief Operating Officer shall serve at 
     the pleasure of the Administrator, except that the 
     Administrator shall make every effort to ensure stability and 
     continuity in the leadership of the air traffic control 
     system.
       ``(E) Vacancy.--Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy 
     in the position of Chief Operating Officer occurring before 
     the expiration of the term for which the individual's 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the 
     remainder of that term.
       ``(2) Annual performance agreement.--The Administrator and 
     the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the Air 
     Traffic Control Oversight Board, shall enter into an annual 
     performance agreement that sets forth measurable organization 
     and individual goals for the Chief Operating Officer in key 
     operational areas. The agreement shall be subject to review 
     and renegotiation on an annual basis.
       ``(3) Annual performance report.--The Chief Operating 
     Officer shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and Congress an annual management report 
     containing such information as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 304. FEDERAL AVIATION MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Membership.--Section 106(p)(2)(C) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) 13 members representing aviation interests, appointed 
     by--
       ``(i) in the case of initial appointments to the Council, 
     the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate; and
       ``(ii) in the case of subsequent appointments to the 
     Council, the Secretary of Transportation.''.
       (b) Terms of Members.--Section 106(p)(6)(A)(i) is amended 
     by striking ``by the President''.

     SEC. 305. ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING.

       (a) Coordinated Environmental Review Process.--
       (1) Development and implementation.--The Secretary shall 
     develop and implement a coordinated environmental review 
     process for aviation infrastructure projects that require--
       (A) the preparation of an environmental impact statement or 
     environmental assessment under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), except that the 
     Secretary may decide not to apply this section to the 
     preparation of an environmental assessment under such Act; or

[[Page 12867]]

       (B) the conduct of any other environmental review, 
     analysis, opinion, or issuance of an environmental permit, 
     license, or approval by operation of Federal law.
       (2) Memorandum of understanding.--
       (A) In general.--The coordinated environmental review 
     process for each project shall ensure that, whenever 
     practicable (as specified in this section), all environmental 
     reviews, analyses, opinions, and any permits, licenses, or 
     approvals that must be issued or made by any Federal agency 
     for the project concerned shall be conducted concurrently and 
     completed within a cooperatively determined time period. Such 
     process for a project or class of project may be incorporated 
     into a memorandum of understanding between the Department of 
     Transportation and Federal agencies (and, where appropriate, 
     State agencies).
       (B) Establishment of time periods.--In establishing the 
     time period referred to in subparagraph (A), and any time 
     periods for review within such period, the Department and all 
     such agencies shall take into account their respective 
     resources and statutory commitments.
       (b) Elements of Coordinated Environmental Review Process.--
     For each project, the coordinated environmental review 
     process established under this section shall provide, at a 
     minimum, for the following elements:
       (1) Federal agency identification.--The Secretary shall, at 
     the earliest possible time, identify all potential Federal 
     agencies that--
       (A) have jurisdiction by law over environmental-related 
     issues that may be affected by the project and the analysis 
     of which would be part of any environmental document required 
     by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4321 et seq.); or
       (B) may be required by Federal law to independently--
       (i) conduct an environmental-related review or analysis; or
       (ii) determine whether to issue a permit, license, or 
     approval or render an opinion on the environmental impact of 
     the project.
       (2) Time limitations and concurrent review.--The Secretary 
     and the head of each Federal agency identified under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A)(i) shall jointly develop and establish time periods for 
     review for--
       (I) all Federal agency comments with respect to any 
     environmental review documents required by the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     the project; and
       (II) all other independent Federal agency environmental 
     analyses, reviews, opinions, and decisions on any permits, 
     licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made for the 
     project;

     whereby each such Federal agency's review shall be undertaken 
     and completed within such established time periods for 
     review; or
       (ii) may enter into an agreement to establish such time 
     periods for review with respect to a class of project; and
       (B) shall ensure, in establishing such time periods for 
     review, that the conduct of any such analysis, review, 
     opinion, and decision is undertaken concurrently with all 
     other environmental reviews for the project, including the 
     reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); except that such review may 
     not be concurrent if the affected Federal agency can 
     demonstrate that such concurrent review would result in a 
     significant adverse impact to the environment or 
     substantively alter the operation of Federal law or would not 
     be possible without information developed as part of the 
     environmental review process.
       (3) Factors to be considered.--Time periods for review 
     established under this section shall be consistent with the 
     time periods established by the Council on Environmental 
     Quality under sections 1501.8 and 1506.10 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       (4) Extensions.--The Secretary shall extend any time 
     periods for review under this section if, upon good cause 
     shown, the Secretary and any Federal agency concerned 
     determine that additional time for analysis and review is 
     needed as a result of new information that has been 
     discovered that could not reasonably have been anticipated 
     when the Federal agency's time periods for review were 
     established. Any memorandum of understanding shall be 
     modified to incorporate any mutually agreed-upon extensions.
       (c) Dispute Resolution.--When the Secretary determines that 
     a Federal agency which is subject to a time period for its 
     environmental review or analysis under this section has 
     failed to complete such review, analysis, opinion, or 
     decision on issuing any permit, license, or approval within 
     the established time period or within any agreed-upon 
     extension to such time period, the Secretary may, after 
     notice and consultation with such agency, close the record on 
     the matter before the Secretary. If the Secretary finds, 
     after timely compliance with this section, that an 
     environmental issue related to the project that an affected 
     Federal agency has jurisdiction over by operation of Federal 
     law has not been resolved, the Secretary and the head of the 
     Federal agency shall resolve the matter not later than 30 
     days after the date of the finding by the Secretary.
       (d) Participation of State Agencies.--For any project 
     eligible for assistance under chapter 471 of title 49, United 
     States Code, a State, by operation of State law, may require 
     that all State agencies that have jurisdiction by State or 
     Federal law over environmental-related issues that may be 
     affected by the project, or that are required to issue any 
     environmental-related reviews, analyses, opinions, or 
     determinations on issuing any permits, licenses, or approvals 
     for the project, be subject to the coordinated environmental 
     review process established under this section unless the 
     Secretary determines that a State's participation would not 
     be in the public interest. For a State to require State 
     agencies to participate in the review process, all affected 
     agencies of the State shall be subject to the review process.
       (e) Assistance to Affected Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may approve a request by a 
     State or other recipient of assistance under chapter 471 of 
     title 49, United States Code, to provide funds made available 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to the State or 
     recipient for an aviation project subject to the coordinated 
     environmental review process established under this section 
     to affected Federal agencies to provide the resources 
     necessary to meet any time limits established under this 
     section.
       (2) Amounts.--Such requests under paragraph (1) shall be 
     approved only--
       (A) for the additional amounts that the Secretary 
     determines are necessary for the affected Federal agencies to 
     meet the time limits for environmental review; and
       (B) if such time limits are less than the customary time 
     necessary for such review.
       (f) Judicial Review and Savings Clause.--
       (1) Judicial review.--Nothing in this section shall affect 
     the reviewability of any final Federal agency action in a 
     court of the United States or in the court of any State.
       (2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall affect 
     the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or any other Federal 
     environmental statute or affect the responsibility of any 
     Federal officer to comply with or enforce any such statute.
       (g) Federal Agency Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Federal agency'' means any Federal agency or any State 
     agency carrying out affected responsibilities required by 
     operation of Federal law.

     SEC. 306. CLARIFICATION OF REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS.

       Section 106(f)(3)(B)(i) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$250,000,000'';
       (2) by striking ``Air Traffic Management System Performance 
     Improvement Act of 1996'' and inserting ``Aviation Investment 
     and Reform Act for the 21st Century'';
       (3) in subclause (I)--
       (A) by inserting ``substantial and'' before ``material''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon at the end; and
       (4) by striking subclauses (II), (III), and (IV) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(II) raise novel or significant legal or policy issues 
     arising out of legal mandates that may substantially and 
     materially affect other transportation modes.''.

     SEC. 307. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF FAA COSTS AND ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Independent Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall conduct the assessments described in 
     this section. To conduct the assessments, the Inspector 
     General may use the staff and resources of the Inspector 
     General or contract with 1 or more independent entities.
       (2) Assessment of adequacy and accuracy of faa cost data 
     and attributions.--
       (A) In general.--The Inspector General shall conduct an 
     assessment to ensure that the method for calculating the 
     overall costs of the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     attributing such costs to specific users is appropriate, 
     reasonable, and understandable to the users.
       (B) Components.--In conducting the assessment under this 
     paragraph, the Inspector General shall assess the following:
       (i) The Federal Aviation Administration's cost input data, 
     including the reliability of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's source documents and the integrity and 
     reliability of the Federal Aviation Administration's data 
     collection process.
       (ii) The Federal Aviation Administration's system for 
     tracking assets.
       (iii) The Federal Aviation Administration's bases for 
     establishing asset values and depreciation rates.
       (iv) The Federal Aviation Administration's system of 
     internal controls for ensuring the consistency and 
     reliability of reported data.
       (v) The Federal Aviation Administration's definition of the 
     services to which the Federal Aviation Administration 
     ultimately attributes its costs.
       (vi) The cost pools used by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and the rationale for and reliability of the 
     bases which the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to 
     use in allocating costs of services to users.
       (C) Requirements for assessment of cost pools.--In carrying 
     out subparagraph (B)(vi), the Inspector General shall--
       (i) review costs that cannot reliably be attributed to 
     specific Federal Aviation Administration services or 
     activities (called ``common and fixed costs'' in the Federal 
     Aviation Administration Cost Allocation Study) and consider 
     alternative methods for allocating such costs; and
       (ii) perform appropriate tests to assess relationships 
     between costs in the various cost pools and activities and 
     services to which the costs are attributed by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration.
       (3) Cost effectiveness.--

[[Page 12868]]

       (A) In general.--The Inspector General shall assess the 
     progress of the Federal Aviation Administration in cost and 
     performance management, including use of internal and 
     external benchmarking in improving the performance and 
     productivity of the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (B) Annual reports.--Not later than December 31, 2000, and 
     annually thereafter until December 31, 2004, the Inspector 
     General shall transmit to Congress an updated report 
     containing the results of the assessment conducted under this 
     paragraph.
       (C) Information to be included in faa financial report.--
     The Administrator shall include in the annual financial 
     report of the Federal Aviation Administration information on 
     the performance of the Administration sufficient to permit 
     users and others to make an informed evaluation of the 
     progress of the Administration in increasing productivity.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal 
     year 2000, not to exceed $1,500,000 may be used to carry out 
     this section.

                      TITLE IV--FAMILY ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 401. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 
                   BOARD.

       (a) Prohibition on Unsolicited Communications.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1136(g)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``transportation,'' and inserting 
     ``transportation and in the event of an accident involving a 
     foreign air carrier that occurs within the United States,'';
       (B) by inserting after ``attorney'' the following: 
     ``(including any associate, agent, employee, or other 
     representative of an attorney)''; and
       (C) by striking ``30th day'' and inserting ``45th day''.
       (2) Enforcement.--Section 1151 is amended by inserting 
     ``1136(g)(2),'' before ``or 1155(a)'' each place it appears.
       (b) Prohibition on Actions To Prevent Mental Health and 
     Counseling Services.--Section 1136(g) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Prohibition on actions to prevent mental health and 
     counseling services.--No State or political subdivision may 
     prevent the employees, agents, or volunteers of an 
     organization designated for an accident under subsection 
     (a)(2) from providing mental health and counseling services 
     under subsection (c)(1) in the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the accident. The director of family support services 
     designated for the accident under subsection (a)(1) may 
     extend such period for not to exceed an additional 30 days if 
     the director determines that the extension is necessary to 
     meet the needs of the families and if State and local 
     authorities are notified of the determination.''.
       (c) Inclusion of Nonrevenue Passengers in Family Assistance 
     Coverage.--Section 1136(h)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Passenger.--The term `passenger' includes--
       ``(A) an employee of an air carrier or foreign air carrier 
     aboard an aircraft; and
       ``(B) any other person aboard the aircraft without regard 
     to whether the person paid for the transportation, occupied a 
     seat, or held a reservation for the flight.''.
       (d) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Section 1136 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed as limiting the actions that an 
     air carrier may take, or the obligations that an air carrier 
     may have, in providing assistance to the families of 
     passengers involved in an aircraft accident.''.

     SEC. 402. AIR CARRIER PLANS.

       (a) Contents of Plans.--
       (1) Flight reservation information.--Section 41113(b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) An assurance that, upon request of the family of a 
     passenger, the air carrier will inform the family of whether 
     the passenger's name appeared on a preliminary passenger 
     manifest for the flight involved in the accident.''.
       (2) Training of employees and agents.--Section 41113(b) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) An assurance that the air carrier will provide 
     adequate training to the employees and agents of the carrier 
     to meet the needs of survivors and family members following 
     an accident.''.
       (3) Consultation on carrier response not covered by plan.--
     Section 41113(b) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(16) An assurance that the air carrier, in the event that 
     the air carrier volunteers assistance to United States 
     citizens within the United States in the case of an aircraft 
     accident outside the United States involving major loss of 
     life, the air carrier will consult with the Board and the 
     Department of State on the provision of the assistance.''.
       (4) Submission of updated plans.--The amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall take effect on the 180th 
     day following the date of enactment of this Act. On or before 
     such 180th day, each air carrier holding a certificate of 
     public convenience and necessity under section 41102 of title 
     49, United States Code, shall submit to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Chairman of the National 
     Transportation Safety Board an updated plan under section 
     41113 of such title that meets the requirement of the 
     amendments made by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
       (5) Conforming amendments.--Section 41113 is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, each air 
     carrier'' and inserting ``Each air carrier''; and
       (B) in subsection (c) by striking ``After the date that is 
     6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''.
       (b) Limitation on Liability.--Section 41113(d) is amended 
     by inserting ``, or in providing information concerning a 
     flight reservation,'' before ``pursuant to a plan''.
       (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Section 41113 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed as limiting the actions that an 
     air carrier may take, or the obligations that an air carrier 
     may have, in providing assistance to the families of 
     passengers involved in an aircraft accident.''.

     SEC. 403. FOREIGN AIR CARRIER PLANS.

       (a) Inclusion of Nonrevenue Passengers in Family Assistance 
     Coverage.--Section 41313(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Passenger.--The term `passenger' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 1136 of this title.''.
       (b) Accidents for Which Plan Is Required.--Section 41313(b) 
     is amended by striking ``significant'' and inserting 
     ``major''.
       (c) Contents of Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41313(c) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(15) Training of employees and agents.--An assurance that 
     the foreign air carrier will provide adequate training to the 
     employees and agents of the carrier to meet the needs of 
     survivors and family members following an accident.
       ``(16) Consultation on carrier response not covered by 
     plan.--An assurance that the foreign air carrier, in the 
     event that the foreign air carrier volunteers assistance to 
     United States citizens within the United States in the case 
     of an aircraft accident outside the United States involving 
     major loss of life, the foreign air carrier will consult with 
     the Board and the Department of State on the provision of the 
     assistance.''.
       (2) Submission of updated plans.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect on the 180th day following 
     the date of enactment of this Act. On or before such 180th 
     day, each foreign air carrier providing foreign air 
     transportation under chapter 413 of title 49, United States 
     Code, shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board an 
     updated plan under section 41313 of such title that meets the 
     requirement of the amendment made by paragraph (1).

     SEC. 404. APPLICABILITY OF DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 40120(a) is amended by inserting 
     ``(including the Act entitled `An Act relating to the 
     maintenance of actions for death on the high seas and other 
     navigable waters', approved March 30, 1920, commonly known as 
     the Death on the High Seas Act (46 U.S.C. App. 761-767; 41 
     Stat. 537-538))'' after ``United States''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to civil actions commenced after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and to civil actions that are not 
     adjudicated by a court of original jurisdiction or settled on 
     or before such date of enactment.

                            TITLE V--SAFETY

     SEC. 501. CARGO COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall require by 
     regulation that, no later than December 31, 2002, equipment 
     be installed, on each cargo aircraft with a maximum 
     certificated takeoff weight in excess of 15,000 kilograms, 
     that provides protection from mid-air collisions using 
     technology that provides--
       (1) cockpit based collision detection and conflict 
     resolution guidance, including display of traffic; and
       (2) a margin of safety of at least the same level as 
     provided by the collision avoidance system known as TCAS-II.
       (b) Extension of Deadline.--The Administrator may extend 
     the deadline established by subsection (a) by not more than 2 
     years if the Administrator finds that the extension is needed 
     to promote--
       (1) a safe and orderly transition to the operation of a 
     fleet of cargo aircraft equipped with collision avoidance 
     equipment; or
       (2) other safety or public interest objectives.

     SEC. 502. RECORDS OF EMPLOYMENT OF PILOT APPLICANTS.

       Section 44936(f) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``(except a branch of 
     the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, or a 
     reserve component of the United States Armed Forces)'' after 
     ``person'' the first place it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) by striking ``individual'' the 
     first place it appears and inserting ``individual's 
     performance as a pilot'';
       (3) in paragraph (14)(B) by inserting ``or from a foreign 
     government or entity that employed the individual'' after 
     ``exists''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Electronic access to faa records.--For the purpose 
     of increasing timely and efficient access to Federal Aviation 
     Administration records described in paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator may allow, under terms established by the 
     Administrator, a designated individual to have

[[Page 12869]]

     electronic access to a specified database containing 
     information about such records.''.

     SEC. 503. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR FAA EMPLOYEES.

       Section 347(b)(1) of the Department of Transportation and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (49 U.S.C. 106 
     note; 109 Stat. 460) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``, including the 
     provisions for investigation and enforcement as provided in 
     chapter 12 of title 5, United States Code''.

     SEC. 504. SAFETY RISK MITIGATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 44701 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Safety Risk Management Program Guidelines.--The 
     Administrator shall issue guidelines and encourage the 
     development of air safety risk mitigation programs throughout 
     the aviation industry, including self-audits and self-
     disclosure programs.''.

     SEC. 505. FLIGHT OPERATIONS QUALITY ASSURANCE RULES.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall issue a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking to develop procedures to protect air carriers and 
     their employees from civil enforcement actions under the 
     program known as Flight Operations Quality Assurance. Not 
     later than 1 year after the last day of the period for public 
     comment provided for in the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
     the Administrator shall issue a final rule establishing such 
     procedures.

     SEC. 506. SMALL AIRPORT CERTIFICATION.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall issue a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking on implementing section 44706(a)(2) of title 49, 
     United States Code, relating to issuance of airport operating 
     certificates for small scheduled passenger air carrier 
     operations. Not later than 1 year after the last day of the 
     period for public comment provided for in the notice of 
     proposed rulemaking, the Administrator shall issue a final 
     rule on implementing such program.

     SEC. 507. LIFE-LIMITED AIRCRAFT PARTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 447 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``Sec. 44725. Life-limited aircraft parts

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding 
     to require the safe disposition of life-limited parts removed 
     from an aircraft. The rulemaking proceeding shall ensure that 
     the disposition deter installation on an aircraft of a life-
     limited part that has reached or exceeded its life limits.
       ``(b) Safe Disposition.--For the purposes of this section, 
     safe disposition includes any of the following methods:
       ``(1) The part may be segregated under circumstances that 
     preclude its installation on an aircraft.
       ``(2) The part may be permanently marked to indicate its 
     used life status.
       ``(3) The part may be destroyed in any manner calculated to 
     prevent reinstallation in an aircraft.
       ``(4) The part may be marked, if practicable, to include 
     the recordation of hours, cycles, or other airworthiness 
     information. If the parts are marked with cycles or hours of 
     usage, that information must be updated when the part is 
     retired from service.
       ``(5) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
       ``(c) Deadlines.--In conducting the rulemaking proceeding 
     under subsection (a), the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, issue a notice of proposed rulemaking; and
       ``(2) not later than 180 days after the close of the 
     comment period on the proposed rule, issue a final rule.
       ``(d) Prior-Removed Life-Limited Parts.--No rule issued 
     under subsection (a) shall require the marking of parts 
     removed before the effective date of the rules issued under 
     subsection (a), nor shall any such rule forbid the 
     installation of an otherwise airworthy life-limited part.''.
       (b) Civil Penalty.--Section 46301(a)(3) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a violation of section 44725, relating to the safe 
     disposal of life-limited aircraft parts; or''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``44725. Life-limited aircraft parts.''.

     SEC. 508. FAA MAY FINE UNRULY PASSENGERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 463 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 46316 as section 46317; and
       (2) by inserting after section 46315 the following:

     ``Sec. 46316. Interference with cabin or flight crew

       ``An individual who interferes with the duties or 
     responsibilities of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil 
     aircraft, or who poses an imminent threat to the safety of 
     the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft, is liable 
     to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not 
     more than $25,000.''.
       (b) Compromise and Setoff.--Section 46301(f)(1)(A)(i) is 
     amended by inserting ``46316,'' before ``or 47107(b)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 463 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 46316 and 
     inserting after the item relating to section 46315 the 
     following:

``46316. Interference with cabin or flight crew.
``46317. General criminal penalty when specific penalty not 
              provided.''.

     SEC. 509. REPORT ON AIR TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT SYSTEM.

       Not later than March 1, 2000, and annually thereafter for 
     the next 5 years, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the progress of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration in implementing the air 
     transportation oversight system. At a minimum, the report 
     shall indicate--
       (1) any funding or staffing constraints that would 
     adversely impact the Administration's ability to fully 
     develop and implement such system;
       (2) progress in integrating the aviation safety data 
     derived from such system's inspections with existing aviation 
     data of the Administration in the safety performance analysis 
     system of the Administration; and
       (3) the Administration's efforts in collaboration with the 
     aviation industry to develop and validate safety performance 
     measures and appropriate risk weightings for the air 
     transportation oversight system.

     SEC. 510. AIRPLANE EMERGENCY LOCATORS.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 44712(b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) does not apply to--
       ``(1) aircraft when used in scheduled flights by scheduled 
     air carriers holding certificates issued by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under subpart II of this part;
       ``(2) aircraft when used in training operations conducted 
     entirely within a 50-mile radius of the airport from which 
     the training operations begin;
       ``(3) aircraft when used in flight operations related to 
     the design and testing, manufacture, preparation, and 
     delivery of aircraft;
       ``(4) aircraft when used in research and development if the 
     aircraft holds a certificate from the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to carry out such research 
     and development;
       ``(5) aircraft when used in showing compliance with 
     regulations crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market 
     surveys;
       ``(6) aircraft when used in the aerial application of a 
     substance for an agricultural purpose;
       ``(7) aircraft with a maximum payload capacity of more than 
     7,500 pounds when used in air transportation; or
       ``(8) aircraft capable of carrying only one individual.''.
       (b) Compliance.--Section 44712 is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after 
     subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Compliance.--An aircraft meets the requirement of 
     subsection (a) if it is equipped with an emergency locator 
     transmitter that transmits on the 121.5/243 megahertz 
     frequency or the 406 megahertz frequency, or with other 
     equipment approved by the Secretary for meeting the 
     requirement of subsection (a).''.
       (c) Effective Date; Regulations.--
       (1) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue regulations under section 44712(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code, as amended by this section not later than 
     January 1, 2002.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

                   TITLE VI--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

     SEC. 601. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDING AIR SAFETY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) General Rule.--Chapter 421 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

     ``Sec. 42121. Protection of employees providing air safety 
       information

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Airline Employees.--No air 
     carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier may 
     discharge an employee or otherwise discriminate against an 
     employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or 
     privileges of employment because the employee (or any person 
     acting pursuant to a request of the employee)--
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be 
     provided to the employer or Federal Government information 
     relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, 
     regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any other law of 
     the United States;
       ``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file 
     (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a 
     proceeding relating to any violation or alleged violation of 
     any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any other law of 
     the United States;
       ``(3) testified or is about to testify in such a 
     proceeding; or
       ``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in such a proceeding.
       ``(b) Department of Labor Complaint Procedure.--
       ``(1) Filing and notification.--A person who believes that 
     he or she has been discharged or

[[Page 12870]]

     otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of 
     subsection (a) may, not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which such violation occurs, file (or have any person file on 
     his or her behalf) a complaint with the Secretary of Labor 
     alleging such discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt of 
     such a complaint, the Secretary of Labor shall notify, in 
     writing, the person named in the complaint and the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration of the 
     filing of the complaint, of the allegations contained in the 
     complaint, of the substance of evidence supporting the 
     complaint, and of the opportunities that will be afforded to 
     such person under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Investigation; preliminary order.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) and after 
     affording the person named in the complaint an opportunity to 
     submit to the Secretary of Labor a written response to the 
     complaint and an opportunity to meet with a representative of 
     the Secretary to present statements from witnesses, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall conduct an investigation and 
     determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that 
     the complaint has merit and notify, in writing, the 
     complainant and the person alleged to have committed a 
     violation of subsection (a) of the Secretary's findings. If 
     the Secretary of Labor concludes that there is a reasonable 
     cause to believe that a violation of subsection (a) has 
     occurred, the Secretary shall accompany the Secretary's 
     findings with a preliminary order providing the relief 
     prescribed by paragraph (3)(B). Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of notification of findings under this paragraph, 
     either the person alleged to have committed the violation or 
     the complainant may file objections to the findings or 
     preliminary order, or both, and request a hearing on the 
     record. The filing of such objections shall not operate to 
     stay any reinstatement remedy contained in the preliminary 
     order. Such hearings shall be conducted expeditiously. If a 
     hearing is not requested in such 30-day period, the 
     preliminary order shall be deemed a final order that is not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Requirements.--
       ``(i) Required showing by complainant.--The Secretary of 
     Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection 
     and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required 
     under subparagraph (A) unless the complainant makes a prima 
     facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor in 
     the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(ii) Showing by employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by 
     the Secretary that the complainant has made the showing 
     required under clause (i), no investigation otherwise 
     required under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted if the 
     employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
     the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel 
     action in the absence of that behavior.
       ``(iii) Criteria for determination by secretary.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a violation of subsection (a) 
     has occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any 
     behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable 
     personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(iv) Prohibition.--Relief may not be ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the 
     same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that 
     behavior.
       ``(3) Final order.--
       ``(A) Deadline for issuance; settlement agreements.--Not 
     later than 120 days after the date of conclusion of a hearing 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor shall issue a 
     final order providing the relief prescribed by this paragraph 
     or denying the complaint. At any time before issuance of a 
     final order, a proceeding under this subsection may be 
     terminated on the basis of a settlement agreement entered 
     into by the Secretary of Labor, the complainant, and the 
     person alleged to have committed the violation.
       ``(B) Remedy.--If, in response to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall order the person who committed such violation 
     to--
       ``(i) take affirmative action to abate the violation;
       ``(ii) reinstate the complainant to his or her former 
     position together with the compensation (including back pay) 
     and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated 
     with his or her employment; and
       ``(iii) provide compensatory damages to the complainant.

     If such an order is issued under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary of Labor, at the request of the complainant, shall 
     assess against the person against whom the order is issued a 
     sum equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses 
     (including attorneys' and expert witness fees) reasonably 
     incurred, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, by the 
     complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing the 
     complaint upon which the order was issued.
       ``(C) Frivolous complaints.--If the Secretary of Labor 
     finds that a complaint under paragraph (1) is frivolous or 
     has been brought in bad faith, the Secretary of Labor may 
     award to the prevailing employer a reasonable attorney's fee 
     not exceeding $5,000.
       ``(4) Review.--
       ``(A) Appeal to court of appeals.--Any person adversely 
     affected or aggrieved by an order issued under paragraph (3) 
     may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect 
     to which the order was issued, allegedly occurred or the 
     circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of such 
     violation. The petition for review must be filed not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the issuance of the final 
     order of the Secretary of Labor. Review shall conform to 
     chapter 7 of title 5. The commencement of proceedings under 
     this subparagraph shall not, unless ordered by the court, 
     operate as a stay of the order.
       ``(B) Limitation on collateral attack.--An order of the 
     Secretary of Labor with respect to which review could have 
     been obtained under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to 
     judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
       ``(5) Enforcement of order by secretary of labor.--Whenever 
     any person has failed to comply with an order issued under 
     paragraph (3), the Secretary of Labor may file a civil action 
     in the United States district court for the district in which 
     the violation was found to occur to enforce such order. In 
     actions brought under this paragraph, the district courts 
     shall have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief 
     including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and 
     compensatory damages.
       ``(6) Enforcement of order by parties.--
       ``(A) Commencement of action.--A person on whose behalf an 
     order was issued under paragraph (3) may commence a civil 
     action against the person to whom such order was issued to 
     require compliance with such order. The appropriate United 
     States district court shall have jurisdiction, without regard 
     to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the 
     parties, to enforce such order.
       ``(B) Attorney fees.--The court, in issuing any final order 
     under this paragraph, may award costs of litigation 
     (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to 
     any party whenever the court determines such award is 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Mandamus.--Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this 
     section shall be enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought 
     under section 1361 of title 28.
       ``(d) Nonapplicability to Deliberate Violations.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of 
     an air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor who, acting 
     without direction from such air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor (or such person's agent), deliberately causes a 
     violation of any requirement relating to air carrier safety 
     under this subtitle or any other law of the United States.
       ``(e) Contractor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `contractor' means a company that performs safety-sensitive 
     functions by contract for an air carrier.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 421 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

``42121. Protection of employees providing air safety information.''.

     SEC. 602. CIVIL PENALTY.

       Section 46301(a)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``subchapter 
     II of chapter 421'' and inserting ``subchapter II or III of 
     chapter 421''.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 701. DUTIES AND POWERS OF ADMINISTRATOR.

       Section 106(g)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``40113(a), 
     (c), and (d),'' and all that follows through ``45302-45304,'' 
     and inserting ``40113(a), 40113(c), 40113(d), 40113(e), 
     40114(a), and 40119, chapter 445 (except sections 44501(b), 
     44502(a)(2), 44502(a)(3), 44502(a)(4), 44503, 44506, 44509, 
     44510, 44514, and 44515), chapter 447 (except sections 44717, 
     44718(a), 44718(b), 44719, 44720, 44721(b), 44722, and 
     44723), chapter 449 (except sections 44903(d), 44904, 44905, 
     44907-44911, 44913, 44915, and 44931-44934), chapter 451, 
     chapter 453, sections''.

     SEC. 702. PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Restatement of Definition of Public Aircraft Without 
     Substantive Change.--Section 40102(a)(38) (as redesignated by 
     section 301 of this Act) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(38) `public aircraft' means an aircraft--
       ``(A) used only for the United States Government, and 
     operated under the conditions specified by section 40125(b) 
     if owned by the Government;
       ``(B) owned by the United States Government, operated by 
     any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment 
     development, or demonstration, and operated under the 
     conditions specified by section 40125(b);
       ``(C) owned and operated by the government of a State, the 
     District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United 
     States, or a political subdivision of one of these 
     governments, under the conditions specified by section 
     40125(c); or
       ``(D) exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by 
     the government of a State, the District of Columbia, a 
     territory or possession of the United States, or a political 
     subdivision of one of these governments, under the conditions 
     specified by section 40125(c).''.
       (b) Qualifications for Public Aircraft Status.--
       (1) In General.--Chapter 401 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``Sec. 40125. Qualifications for public aircraft status

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Commercial purposes.--The term `commercial purposes' 
     means the transportation of

[[Page 12871]]

     persons or property for compensation or hire, but does not 
     include the operation of an aircraft by one government on 
     behalf of another government under a cost reimbursement 
     agreement if the government on whose behalf the operation is 
     conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration that the operation is necessary to 
     respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or 
     property (including natural resources) and that no service by 
     a private operator is reasonably available to meet the 
     threat.
       ``(2) Governmental function.--The term `governmental 
     function' means an activity undertaken by a government, such 
     as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, 
     aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource 
     management.
       ``(3) Qualified non-crewmember.--The term `qualified non-
     crewmember' means an individual, other than a member of the 
     crew, aboard an aircraft--
       ``(A) operated by the armed forces or an intelligence 
     agency of the United States Government; or
       ``(B) whose presence is required to perform, or is 
     associated with the performance of, a governmental function.
       ``(b) Aircraft Owned by the United States.--An aircraft 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 40102(a)(38), 
     if owned by the Government, qualifies as a public aircraft 
     except when it is used for commercial purposes or to carry an 
     individual other than a crewmember or a qualified non-
     crewmember.
       ``(c) Aircraft Owned by State and Local Governments.--An 
     aircraft described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 
     40102(a)(38) qualifies as a public aircraft except when it is 
     used for commercial purposes or to carry an individual other 
     than a crewmember or a qualified non-crewmember.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 401 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``40125. Qualifications for public aircraft status.''.

     SEC. 703. PROHIBITION ON RELEASE OF OFFEROR PROPOSALS.

       Section 40110 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Prohibition on Release of Offeror Proposals.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     proposal in the possession or control of the Administrator 
     may not be made available to any person under section 552 of 
     title 5.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     portion of a proposal of an offeror the disclosure of which 
     is authorized by the Administrator pursuant to procedures 
     published in the Federal Register. The Administrator shall 
     provide an opportunity for public comment on the procedures 
     for a period of not less than 30 days beginning on the date 
     of such publication in order to receive and consider the 
     views of all interested parties on the procedures. The 
     procedures shall not take effect before the 60th day 
     following the date of such publication.
       ``(3) Proposal defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `proposal' means information contained in or originating from 
     any proposal, including a technical, management, or cost 
     proposal, submitted by an offeror in response to the 
     requirements of a solicitation for a competitive proposal.''.

     SEC. 704. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS.

       Section 40111 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (d) as 
     subsections (c) through (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Telecommunications Services.--Notwithstanding section 
     1341(a)(1)(B) of title 31, the Administrator may make a 
     contract of not more than 10 years for telecommunication 
     services that are provided through the use of a satellite if 
     the Administrator finds that the longer contract period would 
     be cost beneficial.''.

     SEC. 705. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL 
                   MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Mediation.--Section 40122(a)(2) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``The 60-day period shall not include 
     any period during which Congress has adjourned sine die.''.
       (b) Right To Contest Adverse Personnel Actions.--Section 
     40122 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Right To Contest Adverse Personnel Actions.--An 
     employee of the Federal Aviation Administration who is the 
     subject of a major adverse personnel action may contest the 
     action either through any contractual grievance procedure 
     that is applicable to the employee as a member of the 
     collective bargaining unit or through the Administration's 
     internal process relating to review of major adverse 
     personnel actions of the Administration, known as Guaranteed 
     Fair Treatment or under section 347(c) of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996.
       ``(h) Election of Forum.--Where a major adverse personnel 
     action may be contested through more than one of the 
     indicated forums (such as the contractual grievance 
     procedure, the Federal Aviation Administration's internal 
     process, or that of the Merit Systems Protection Board), an 
     employee must elect the forum through which the matter will 
     be contested. Nothing in this section is intended to allow an 
     employee to contest an action through more than one forum 
     unless otherwise allowed by law.
       ``(i) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `major adverse personnel action' means a suspension of more 
     than 14 days, a reduction in pay or grade, a removal for 
     conduct or performance, a nondisciplinary removal, a furlough 
     of 30 days or less (but not including placement in a nonpay 
     status as the result of a lapse of appropriations or an 
     enactment by Congress), or a reduction in force action.''.
       (c) Applicability of Merit Systems Protection Board 
     Provisions.--Section 347(b) of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
     (109 Stat. 460) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) sections 1204, 1211-1218, 1221, and 7701-7703, 
     relating to the Merit Systems Protection Board.''.
       (d) Appeals to Merit Systems Protection Board.--Section 
     347(c) of the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Appeals to Merit Systems Protection Board.--Under the 
     new personnel management system developed and implemented 
     under subsection (a), an employee of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board and may seek judicial review of any 
     resulting final orders or decisions of the Board from any 
     action that was appealable to the Board under any law, rule, 
     or regulation as of March 31, 1996.''.

     SEC. 706. NONDISCRIMINATION IN AIRLINE TRAVEL.

       (a) Discriminatory Practices.--Section 41310(a) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Prohibitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--An air carrier or foreign air carrier 
     may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic in 
     foreign air transportation to unreasonable discrimination.
       ``(2) Discrimination against persons.--An air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier may not subject a person in foreign air 
     transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
     national origin, religion, or sex.''.
       (b) Interstate Air Transportation.--Section 41702 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``An air carrier'' and inserting ``(a) Safe 
     and Adequate Air Transportation.--An air carrier''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Discrimination Against Persons.--An air carrier may 
     not subject a person in interstate air transportation to 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, 
     religion, or sex.''.
       (c) Discrimination Against Handicapped Individuals.--
     Section 41705 is amended by inserting ``or foreign air 
     carrier'' after ``air carrier''.
       (d) Civil Penalty for Violations of Prohibition on 
     Discrimination Against the Handicapped.--Section 46301(a)(3) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a violation of section 41705, relating to 
     discrimination against handicapped individuals.''.
       (e) International Aviation Standards for Accommodating the 
     Handicapped.--The Secretary of Transportation shall work with 
     appropriate international organizations and the aviation 
     authorities of other nations to bring about the establishment 
     of higher standards, if appropriate, for accommodating 
     handicapped passengers in air transportation, particularly 
     with respect to foreign air carriers that code share with 
     domestic air carriers.

     SEC. 707. JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT.

       Section 41716(a)(1) is amended by striking ``an agreement 
     entered into by a major air carrier'' and inserting ``an 
     agreement entered into between 2 or more major air 
     carriers''.

     SEC. 708. EXTENSION OF WAR RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 44310 is amended by striking ``after'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``after December 31, 2004.''.

     SEC. 709. GENERAL FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL AUTHORITY.

       Section 44502(a) is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) Improvements on leased properties.--The Administrator 
     may make improvements to real property leased for no or 
     nominal consideration for an air navigation facility, 
     regardless of whether the cost of making the improvements 
     exceeds the cost of leasing the real property, if--
       ``(A) the improvements primarily benefit the Government;
       ``(B) the improvements are essential for accomplishment of 
     the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
       ``(C) the interest of the Government in the improvements is 
     protected.''.

     SEC. 710. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 83 BIS OF THE CHICAGO 
                   CONVENTION.

       Section 44701 is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Bilateral Exchanges of Safety Oversight 
     Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of this 
     chapter, the Administrator, pursuant to Article 83 bis of the 
     Convention on International Civil Aviation and by a bilateral 
     agreement with the aeronautical authorities of another 
     country, may exchange with that country all or part of their 
     respective functions and duties with respect to registered 
     aircraft under the following articles of the Convention: 
     Article 12 (Rules of the Air); Article 31 (Certificates of 
     Airworthiness); or Article 32a (Licenses of Personnel).

[[Page 12872]]

       ``(2) Relinquishment and acceptance of responsibility.--The 
     Administrator relinquishes responsibility with respect to the 
     functions and duties transferred by the Administrator as 
     specified in the bilateral agreement, under the Articles 
     listed in paragraph (1) for United States-registered aircraft 
     described in paragraph (4)(A) transferred abroad and accepts 
     responsibility with respect to the functions and duties under 
     those Articles for aircraft registered abroad and described 
     in paragraph (4)(B) that are transferred to the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Conditions.--The Administrator may predicate, in the 
     agreement, the transfer of functions and duties under this 
     subsection on any conditions the Administrator deems 
     necessary and prudent, except that the Administrator may not 
     transfer responsibilities for United States registered 
     aircraft described in paragraph (4)(A) to a country that the 
     Administrator determines is not in compliance with its 
     obligations under international law for the safety oversight 
     of civil aviation.
       ``(4) Registered aircraft defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `registered aircraft' means--
       ``(A) aircraft registered in the United States and operated 
     pursuant to an agreement for the lease, charter, or 
     interchange of the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an 
     operator that has its principal place of business or, if it 
     has no such place of business, its permanent residence in 
     another country; or
       ``(B) aircraft registered in a foreign country and operated 
     under an agreement for the lease, charter, or interchange of 
     the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an operator that 
     has its principal place of business or, if it has no such 
     place of business, its permanent residence in the United 
     States.''.

     SEC. 711. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF AIRMEN RECORDS.

       Section 44703 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Public Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the information 
     contained in the records of contents of any airman 
     certificate issued under this section that is limited to an 
     airman's name, address, date of birth, and ratings held shall 
     be made available to the public after the 120th day following 
     the date of enactment of the Aviation Investment and Reform 
     Act for the 21st Century.
       ``(2) Opportunity to withhold information.--Before making 
     any information concerning an airman available to the public 
     under paragraph (1), the airman shall be given an opportunity 
     to elect that the information not be made available to the 
     public.
       ``(3) Development and implementation of program.--Not later 
     than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, the 
     Administrator shall develop and implement, in cooperation 
     with representatives of the aviation industry, a one-time 
     written notification to airmen to set forth the implications 
     of making information concerning an airman available to the 
     public under paragraph (1) and to carry out paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 712. APPEALS OF EMERGENCY REVOCATIONS OF CERTIFICATES.

       Section 44709(e) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Effectiveness of Orders Pending Appeal.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     a person files an appeal with the Board under section (d), 
     the order of the Administrator is stayed.
       ``(2) Emergencies.--If the Administrator advises the Board 
     that an emergency exists and safety in air commerce or air 
     transportation requires the order to be effective 
     immediately, the order is effective, except that a person 
     filing an appeal under subsection (d) may file a written 
     petition to the Board for an emergency stay on the issues of 
     the appeal that are related to the existence of the 
     emergency. The Board shall have 10 days to review the 
     materials. If any 2 members of the Board determine that 
     sufficient grounds exist to grant a stay, an emergency stay 
     shall be granted. If an emergency stay is granted, the Board 
     must meet within 15 days of the granting of the stay to make 
     a final disposition of the issues related to the existence of 
     the emergency.
       ``(3) Final disposition of appeal.--In all cases, the Board 
     shall make a final disposition of the merits of the appeal 
     not later than 60 days after the Administrator advises the 
     Board of the order.''.

     SEC. 713. GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY CONSORTIA.

       Section 44903 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Government and Industry Consortia.--The Administrator 
     may establish at individual airports such consortia of 
     government and aviation industry representatives as the 
     Administrator may designate to provide advice on matters 
     related to aviation security and safety. Such consortia shall 
     not be considered Federal advisory committees.''.

     SEC. 714. PASSENGER MANIFEST.

       Section 44909(a)(2) is amended by striking ``shall'' and 
     inserting ``should''.

     SEC. 715. COST RECOVERY FOR FOREIGN AVIATION SERVICES.

       Section 45301 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Services (other than air traffic control services) 
     provided to a foreign government or to any entity obtaining 
     services outside the United States, except that the 
     Administrator shall not impose fees in any manner for 
     production-certification related service performed outside 
     the United States pertaining to aeronautical products 
     manufactured outside the United States.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Production-Certification Related Service Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `production-certification related 
     service' has the meaning given that term in appendix C of 
     part 187 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''.

     SEC. 716. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS.

       Section 46301 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A) by striking ``46302, 46303, 
     or'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(7)(A) by striking ``an individual'' 
     the first place it appears and inserting ``a person''; and
       (3) in subsection (g) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' 
     after ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 717. WAIVER UNDER AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT.

       (a) Waivers for Aircraft Not Complying With Stage 3 Noise 
     Levels.--Section 47528(b)(1) is amended in the first sentence 
     by inserting ``or foreign air carrier'' after ``air 
     carrier''.
       (b) Exemption for Aircraft Modification or Disposal.--
     Section 47528 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``or (f)'' after 
     ``(b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Aircraft Modification or Disposal.--After December 
     31, 1999, the Secretary may provide a procedure under which a 
     person may operate a stage 1 or stage 2 aircraft in 
     nonrevenue service to or from an airport in the United States 
     in order to--
       ``(1) sell the aircraft outside the United States;
       ``(2) sell the aircraft for scrapping; or
       ``(3) obtain modifications to the aircraft to meet stage 3 
     noise levels.''.
       (c) Limited Operation of Certain Aircraft.--Section 
     47528(e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) An air carrier operating stage 2 aircraft under this 
     subsection may operate stage 2 aircraft to or from the 48 
     contiguous States on a nonrevenue basis in order to--
       ``(A) perform maintenance (including major alterations) or 
     preventative maintenance on aircraft operated, or to be 
     operated, within the limitations of paragraph (2)(B); or
       ``(B) conduct operations within the limitations of 
     paragraph (2)(B).''.

     SEC. 718. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Extension of Application Approvals.--Section 49108 is 
     amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2004''.
       (b) Elimination of Deadline for Appointment of Members to 
     Board of Directors.--Section 49106(c)(6) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating subparagraph 
     (D) as subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 719. ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

       Section 348 of the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (49 U.S.C. 106 note; 109 
     Stat. 460) is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Contracts Extending Into a Subsequent Fiscal Year.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (b)(3), the Administrator may 
     enter into contracts for procurement of severable services 
     that begin in one fiscal year and end in another if (without 
     regard to any option to extend the period of the contract) 
     the contract period does not exceed 1 year.''.

     SEC. 720. CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT COMMISSION.

       (a) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--Section 4(a)(5) of the Centennial of 
     Flight Commemoration Act (36 U.S.C. 143 note; 112 Stat. 3487) 
     is amended by inserting ``, or his designee,'' after 
     ``prominence''.
       (2) Status.--Section 4 of such Act (112 Stat. 3487) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Status.--The members of the Commission described in 
     paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (a) shall not 
     be considered to be officers or employees of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Duties.--Section 5(a)(7) of such Act (112 Stat. 3488) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) as a nonprimary purpose, publish popular and 
     scholarly works related to the history of aviation or the 
     anniversary of the centennial of powered flight.''.
       (c) Conflicts of Interest.--Section 6 of such Act (112 
     Stat. 3488-3489) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Conflicts of Interest.--At its second business 
     meeting, the Commission shall adopt a policy to protect 
     against possible conflicts of interest involving its members 
     and employees. The Commission shall consult with the Office 
     of Government Ethics in the development of such a policy and 
     shall recognize the status accorded its members under section 
     4(g).''.
       (d) Executive Director.--The first sentence of section 7(a) 
     of such Act (112 Stat. 3489) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``or 
     represented on the First Flight Centennial Advisory Board 
     under subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 12(b)(1).''.
       (e) Exclusive Right to Name, Logos, Emblems, Seals, and 
     Marks.--
       (1) Use of funds.--Section 9(d) of such Act (112 Stat. 
     3490) is amended by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``, except that the Commission may 
     transfer any

[[Page 12873]]

     portion of such funds that is in excess of the funds 
     necessary to carry out such duties to any Federal agency or 
     the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian 
     Institution to be used for the sole purpose of commemorating 
     the history of aviation or the centennial of powered 
     flight.''.
       (2) Duties to be carried out by administrator of nasa.--
     Section 9 of such Act (112 Stat. 3490) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Duties To Be Carried Out by Administrator of NASA.--
     The duties of the Commission under this section shall be 
     carried out by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, in consultation with the 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 721. AIRCRAFT SITUATIONAL DISPLAY DATA.

       (a) In General.--A memorandum of agreement between the 
     Administrator and any person that directly obtains aircraft 
     situational display data from the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall require that--
       (1) the person demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator that such person is capable of selectively 
     blocking the display of any aircraft-situation-display-to-
     industry derived data related to any identified aircraft 
     registration number; and
       (2) the person agree to block selectively the aircraft 
     registration numbers of any aircraft owner or operator upon 
     the Administration's request.
       (b) Existing Memoranda To Be Conformed.--The Administrator 
     shall conform any memoranda of agreement, in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, between the Administration and 
     a person under which that person obtains aircraft situational 
     display data to incorporate the requirements of subsection 
     (a) within 30 days after that date.

     SEC. 722. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINTS.

       (a) Hiring of Additional Personnel.--For fiscal year 2000, 
     the Secretary of Transportation may hire or contract for such 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to eliminate the 
     backlog of pending equal employment opportunity complaints to 
     the Department of Transportation and to ensure that 
     investigations of complaints are completed not later than 180 
     days after the date of initiation of the investigation.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal 
     year 2000, $2,000,000 may be used to carry out this section.

     SEC. 723. NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA.

       (a) Authority To Grant Waivers.--Notwithstanding section 16 
     of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on May 14, 1947) or 
     section 47125 of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall, subject to section 47153 of such title (as in effect 
     on June 1, 1998), and subsection (b) of this section, waive 
     with respect to airport property parcels that, according to 
     the Federal Aviation Administration approved airport layout 
     plan for Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, are 
     no longer required for airport purposes from any term 
     contained in the deed of conveyance dated May 14, 1947, under 
     which the United States conveyed such property to the 
     Peninsula Airport Commission for airport purposes of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Conditions.--Any waiver granted by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The Peninsula Airport Commission shall agree that, in 
     leasing or conveying any interest in the property with 
     respect to which waivers are granted under subsection (a), 
     the Commission will receive an amount that is equal to the 
     fair lease value or the fair market value, as the case may be 
     (as determined pursuant to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary).
       (2) Peninsula Airport Commission shall use any amount so 
     received only for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of Newport News/Williamsburg International 
     Airport.

     SEC. 724. GRANT OF EASEMENT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

       The City of Los Angeles Department of Airports may grant an 
     easement to the California Department of Transportation to 
     lands required to provide sufficient right-of-way to 
     facilitate the construction of the California State Route 138 
     bypass, as proposed by the California Department of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 725. REGULATION OF ALASKA GUIDE PILOTS.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, flight operations conducted by Alaska guide pilots shall 
     be regulated under the general operating and flight rules 
     contained in part 91 of title 14, Code of Regulations.
       (b) Rulemaking Proceeding.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct a 
     rulemaking proceeding and issue a final rule to modify the 
     general operating and flight rules referred to in subsection 
     (a) by establishing special rules applicable to the flight 
     operations conducted by Alaska guide pilots.
       (2) Contents of rules.--A final rule issued by the 
     Administrator under paragraph (1) shall require Alaska guide 
     pilots--
       (A) to operate aircraft inspected no less often than after 
     125 hours of flight time;
       (B) to participate in an annual flight review, as described 
     in section 61.56 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (C) to have at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot;
       (D) to have a commercial rating, as described subpart F of 
     part 61 of such title;
       (E) to hold at least a second-class medical certificate, as 
     described in subpart C of part 67 of such title;
       (F) to hold a current letter of authorization issued by the 
     Administrator; and
       (G) to take such other actions as the Administrator 
     determines necessary for safety.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Letter of authorization.--The term ``letter of 
     authorization'' means a letter issued by the Administrator 
     once every 5 years to an Alaska guide pilot certifying that 
     the pilot is in compliance with general operating and flight 
     rules applicable to the pilot. In the case of a multi-pilot 
     operation, at the election of the operating entity, a letter 
     of authorization may be issued by the Administrator to the 
     entity or to each Alaska guide pilot employed by the entity.
       (2) Alaska guide pilot.--The term ``Alaska guide pilot'' 
     means a pilot who--
       (A) conducts aircraft operations over or within the State 
     of Alaska;
       (B) operates single engine, fixed wing aircraft on floats, 
     wheels, or skis, providing commercial hunting, fishing, or 
     other guide services and related accommodations in the form 
     of camps or lodges; and
       (C) transports clients by such aircraft incidental to 
     hunting, fishing, or other guide services, or uses air 
     transport to enable guided clients to reach hunting or 
     fishing locations.

     SEC. 726. AIRCRAFT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ADVISORY PANEL.

       (a) Establishment of Panel.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       (1) shall establish an Aircraft Repair and Maintenance 
     Advisory Panel to review issues related to the use and 
     oversight of aircraft and aviation component repair and 
     maintenance facilities (in this section referred to as 
     ``aircraft repair facilities'') located within, or outside 
     of, the United States; and
       (2) may seek the advice of the panel on any issue related 
     to methods to increase safety by improving the oversight of 
     aircraft repair facilities.
       (b) Membership.--The panel shall consist of--
       (1) 9 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (A) 3 representatives of labor organizations representing 
     aviation mechanics;
       (B) 1 representative of cargo air carriers;
       (C) 1 representative of passenger air carriers;
       (D) 1 representative of aircraft repair facilities;
       (E) 1 representative of aircraft manufacturers;
       (F) 1 representative of on-demand passenger air carriers 
     and corporate aircraft operations; and
       (G) 1 representative of regional passenger air carriers;
       (2) 1 representative from the Department of Commerce, 
     designated by the Secretary of Commerce;
       (3) 1 representative from the Department of State, 
     designated by the Secretary of State; and
       (4) 1 representative from the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, designated by the Administrator.
       (c) Responsibilities.--The panel shall--
       (1) determine the amount and type of work that is being 
     performed by aircraft repair facilities located within, and 
     outside of, the United States; and
       (2) provide advice and counsel to the Secretary with 
     respect to the aircraft and aviation component repair work 
     performed by aircraft repair facilities and air carriers, 
     staffing needs, and any balance of trade or safety issues 
     associated with that work.
       (d) DOT To Request Information From Air Carriers and Repair 
     Facilities.--
       (1) Collection of information.--The Secretary, by 
     regulation, shall require air carriers, foreign air carriers, 
     domestic repair facilities, and foreign repair facilities to 
     submit such information as the Secretary may require in order 
     to assess balance of trade and safety issues with respect to 
     work performed on aircraft used by air carriers, foreign air 
     carriers, United States corporate operators, and foreign 
     corporate operators.
       (2) Drug and alcohol testing information.--Included in the 
     information the Secretary requires under paragraph (1) shall 
     be information on the existence and administration of 
     employee drug and alcohol testing programs in place at the 
     foreign repair facilities, if applicable. The Secretary, if 
     necessary, shall work with the International Civil Aviation 
     Organization to increase the number and improve the 
     administration of employee drug and alcohol testing programs 
     at the foreign repair facilities.
       (3) Description of work done.--Included in the information 
     the Secretary requires under paragraph (1) shall be 
     information on the amount and type of work performed on 
     aircraft registered in and outside of the United States.
       (e) DOT To Facilitate Collection of Information About 
     Aircraft Maintenance.--The Secretary shall facilitate the 
     collection of information from the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other 
     appropriate agencies regarding maintenance performed by 
     aircraft repair facilities.
       (f) DOT To Make Information Available to Public.--The 
     Secretary shall make any relevant information received under 
     subsection (c) available to the public, consistent with the 
     authority to withhold trade secrets or commercial, financial, 
     and other proprietary information under section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (g) Termination.--The panel established under subsection 
     (a) shall terminate on the earlier of--

[[Page 12874]]

       (1) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (2) December 31, 2001.
       (h) Definitions.--The definitions contained in section 
     40102 of title 49, United States Code, shall apply to this 
     section.

     SEC. 727. OPERATIONS OF AIR TAXI INDUSTRY.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     National Transportation Safety Board and other interested 
     persons, shall conduct a study of air taxi operators 
     regulated under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of the 
     size and type of the aircraft fleet, relevant aircraft 
     equipment, hours flown, utilization rates, safety record by 
     various categories of use and aircraft type, sales revenues, 
     and airports served by the air taxi fleet.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 728. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING COMPLETION OF 
                   COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL AIRSPACE REDESIGN.

       It is the sense of Congress that, as soon as is 
     practicable, the Administrator should complete and begin 
     implementation of the comprehensive national airspace 
     redesign that is being conducted by the Administrator.

     SEC. 729. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to 
     avoid unnecessary duplication of expense and effort, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may authorize the use, in whole 
     or in part, of a completed environmental assessment or 
     environmental impact study for new construction projects on 
     the air operations area of an airport, if the completed 
     assessment or study was for a project at the airport that is 
     substantially similar in nature to the new project. Any such 
     authorized use shall meet all requirements of Federal law for 
     the completion of such an assessment or study.

     SEC. 730. AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT AIRPORTS.

       (a) Development of New Standards.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall continue to work to develop a new 
     standard for aircraft and aircraft engines that will lead to 
     a further reduction in aircraft noise levels.
       (b) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2000, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report 
     regarding the application of new standards or technologies to 
     reduce aircraft noise levels.

     SEC. 731. FAA CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN STATE PROPOSALS.

       The Administrator is encouraged to consider any proposal 
     with a regional consensus submitted by a State aviation 
     authority regarding the expansion of existing airport 
     facilities or the introduction of new airport facilities.

             TITLE VIII--NATIONAL PARKS AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Parks Air Tour 
     Management Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Aviation Administration has sole authority 
     to control airspace over the United States;
       (2) the Federal Aviation Administration has the authority 
     to preserve, protect, and enhance the environment by 
     minimizing, mitigating, or preventing the adverse effects of 
     aircraft overflights of public and tribal lands;
       (3) the National Park Service has the responsibility of 
     conserving the scenery and natural and historic objects and 
     wildlife in national parks and of providing for the enjoyment 
     of the national parks in ways that leave the national parks 
     unimpaired for future generations;
       (4) the protection of tribal lands from aircraft 
     overflights is consistent with protecting the public health 
     and welfare and is essential to the maintenance of the 
     natural and cultural resources of Indian tribes;
       (5) the National Parks Overflights Working Group, composed 
     of general aviation, commercial air tour, environmental, and 
     Native American representatives, recommended that the 
     Congress enact legislation based on the Group's consensus 
     work product; and
       (6) this title reflects the recommendations made by that 
     Group.

     SEC. 803. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR NATIONAL PARKS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 401 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 40126. Overflights of national parks

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) General requirements.--A commercial air tour operator 
     may not conduct commercial air tour operations over a 
     national park (including tribal lands) except--
       ``(A) in accordance with this section;
       ``(B) in accordance with conditions and limitations 
     prescribed for that operator by the Administrator; and
       ``(C) in accordance with any applicable air tour management 
     plan for the park.
       ``(2) Application for operating authority.--
       ``(A) Application required.--Before commencing commercial 
     air tour operations over a national park (including tribal 
     lands), a commercial air tour operator shall apply to the 
     Administrator for authority to conduct the operations over 
     the park.
       ``(B) Competitive bidding for limited capacity parks.--
     Whenever an air tour management plan limits the number of 
     commercial air tour operations over a national park during a 
     specified time frame, the Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Director, shall issue operation specifications to 
     commercial air tour operators that conduct such operations. 
     The operation specifications shall include such terms and 
     conditions as the Administrator and the Director find 
     necessary for management of commercial air tour operations 
     over the park. The Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Director, shall develop an open competitive process for 
     evaluating proposals from persons interested in providing 
     commercial air tour operations over the park. In making a 
     selection from among various proposals submitted, the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the Director, shall 
     consider relevant factors, including--
       ``(i) the safety record of the person submitting the 
     proposal or pilots employed by the person;
       ``(ii) any quiet aircraft technology proposed to be used by 
     the person submitting the proposal;
       ``(iii) the experience of the person submitting the 
     proposal with commercial air tour operations over other 
     national parks or scenic areas;
       ``(iv) the financial capability of the company;
       ``(v) any training programs for pilots provided by the 
     person submitting the proposal; and
       ``(vi) responsiveness of the person submitting the proposal 
     to any relevant criteria developed by the National Park 
     Service for the affected park.
       ``(C) Number of operations authorized.--In determining the 
     number of authorizations to issue to provide commercial air 
     tour operations over a national park, the Administrator, in 
     cooperation with the Director, shall take into consideration 
     the provisions of the air tour management plan, the number of 
     existing commercial air tour operators and current level of 
     service and equipment provided by any such operators, and the 
     financial viability of each commercial air tour operation.
       ``(D) Cooperation with nps.--Before granting an application 
     under this paragraph, the Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Director, shall develop an air tour management plan in 
     accordance with subsection (b) and implement such plan.
       ``(3) Exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a commercial air tour operator 
     secures a letter of agreement from the Administrator and the 
     superintendent for the national park that describes the 
     conditions under which the commercial air tour operation will 
     be conducted, then notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     commercial air tour operator may conduct such operations over 
     the national park under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, if such activity is permitted under part 119 of 
     such title.
       ``(B) Limit on exceptions.--Not more than 5 flights in any 
     30-day period over a single national park may be conducted 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(4) Special rule for safety requirements.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (d), an existing commercial air 
     tour operator shall apply, not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, for operating authority 
     under part 119, 121, or 135 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations. A new entrant commercial air tour operator shall 
     apply for such authority before conducting commercial air 
     tour operations over a national park (including tribal 
     lands). The Administrator shall act on any such application 
     for a new entrant and issue a decision on the application not 
     later than 24 months after it is received or amended.
       ``(b) Air Tour Management Plans.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Director, shall establish an air tour management plan for 
     any national park (including tribal lands) for which such a 
     plan is not in effect whenever a person applies for authority 
     to conduct a commercial air tour operation over the park. The 
     air tour management plan shall be developed by means of a 
     public process in accordance with paragraph (4).
       ``(B) Objective.--The objective of any air tour management 
     plan shall be to develop acceptable and effective measures to 
     mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if any, 
     of commercial air tours upon the natural and cultural 
     resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands.
       ``(2) Environmental determination.--In establishing an air 
     tour management plan under this subsection, the Administrator 
     and the Director shall each sign the environmental decision 
     document required by section 102 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) (including 
     a finding of no significant impact, an environmental 
     assessment, and an environmental impact statement) and the 
     record of decision for the air tour management plan.
       ``(3) Contents.--An air tour management plan for a national 
     park--
       ``(A) may limit or prohibit commercial air tour operations;
       ``(B) may establish conditions for the conduct of 
     commercial air tour operations, including commercial air tour 
     operation routes, maximum or minimum altitudes, time-of-day 
     restrictions, restrictions for particular events, maximum 
     number of flights per unit of time, intrusions on privacy on 
     tribal lands, and mitigation of adverse noise, visual, or 
     other impacts;
       ``(C) may apply to all commercial air tour operations;
       ``(D) shall include incentives (such as preferred 
     commercial air tour operation routes and altitudes and relief 
     from flight caps and curfews) for the adoption of quiet 
     aircraft technology by commercial air tour operators 
     conducting commercial air tour operations over the park;

[[Page 12875]]

       ``(E) shall provide a system for allocating opportunities 
     to conduct commercial air tours if the air tour management 
     plan includes a limitation on the number of commercial air 
     tour operations for any time period; and
       ``(F) shall justify and document the need for measures 
     taken pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (E) and include 
     such justifications in the record of decision.
       ``(4) Procedure.--In establishing an air tour management 
     plan for a national park (including tribal lands), the 
     Administrator and the Director shall--
       ``(A) hold at least one public meeting with interested 
     parties to develop the air tour management plan;
       ``(B) publish the proposed plan in the Federal Register for 
     notice and comment and make copies of the proposed plan 
     available to the public;
       ``(C) comply with the regulations set forth in sections 
     1501.3 and 1501.5 through 1501.8 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (for purposes of complying with the regulations, 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall be the lead agency 
     and the National Park Service is a cooperating agency); and
       ``(D) solicit the participation of any Indian tribe whose 
     tribal lands are, or may be, overflown by aircraft involved 
     in a commercial air tour operation over the park, as a 
     cooperating agency under the regulations referred to in 
     subparagraph (C).
       ``(5) Judicial review.--An air tour management plan 
     developed under this subsection shall be subject to judicial 
     review.
       ``(6) Amendments.--The Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Director, may make amendments to an air tour management 
     plan. Any such amendments shall be published in the Federal 
     Register for notice and comment. A request for amendment of 
     an air tour management plan shall be made in such form and 
     manner as the Administrator may prescribe.
       ``(c) Determination of Commercial Air Tour Operation 
     Status.--In making a determination of whether a flight is a 
     commercial air tour operation, the Administrator may 
     consider--
       ``(1) whether there was a holding out to the public of 
     willingness to conduct a sightseeing flight for compensation 
     or hire;
       ``(2) whether a narrative that referred to areas or points 
     of interest on the surface below the route of the flight was 
     provided by the person offering the flight;
       ``(3) the area of operation;
       ``(4) the frequency of flights conducted by the person 
     offering the flight;
       ``(5) the route of flight;
       ``(6) the inclusion of sightseeing flights as part of any 
     travel arrangement package offered by the person offering the 
     flight;
       ``(7) whether the flight would have been canceled based on 
     poor visibility of the surface below the route of the flight; 
     and
       ``(8) any other factors that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Interim Operating Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon application for operating 
     authority, the Administrator shall grant interim operating 
     authority under this subsection to a commercial air tour 
     operator for commercial air tour operations over a national 
     park (including tribal lands) for which the operator is an 
     existing commercial air tour operator.
       ``(2) Requirements and limitations.--Interim operating 
     authority granted under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall provide annual authorization only for the 
     greater of--
       ``(i) the number of flights used by the operator to provide 
     such tours within the 12-month period prior to the date of 
     enactment of this section; or
       ``(ii) the average number of flights per 12-month period 
     used by the operator to provide such tours within the 36-
     month period prior to such date of enactment, and, for 
     seasonal operations, the number of flights so used during the 
     season or seasons covered by that 12-month period;
       ``(B) may not provide for an increase in the number of 
     commercial air tour operations conducted during any time 
     period by the commercial air tour operator above the number 
     that the air tour operator was originally granted unless such 
     an increase is agreed to by the Administrator and the 
     Director;
       ``(C) shall be published in the Federal Register to provide 
     notice and opportunity for comment;
       ``(D) may be revoked by the Administrator for cause;
       ``(E) shall terminate 180 days after the date on which an 
     air tour management plan is established for the park or the 
     tribal lands;
       ``(F) shall promote protection of national park resources, 
     visitor experiences, and tribal lands;
       ``(G) shall promote safe operations of the commercial air 
     tour;
       ``(H) shall promote the adoption of quiet technology, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(I) shall allow for modifications of the operation based 
     on experience if the modification improves protection of 
     national park resources and values and of tribal lands.
       ``(e) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), 
     this section shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the Grand Canyon National Park;
       ``(B) tribal lands within or abutting the Grand Canyon 
     National Park; or
       ``(C) any unit of the National Park System located in 
     Alaska or any other land or water located in Alaska.
       ``(2) Exception.--This section shall apply to the Grand 
     Canyon National Park if section 3 of Public Law 100-91 (16 
     U.S.C. 1a-1 note; 101 Stat. 674-678) is no longer in effect.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Commercial air tour operator.--The term `commercial 
     air tour operator' means any person who conducts a commercial 
     air tour operation.
       ``(2) Existing commercial air tour operator.--The term 
     `existing commercial air tour operator' means a commercial 
     air tour operator that was actively engaged in the business 
     of providing commercial air tour operations over a national 
     park at any time during the 12-month period ending on the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) New entrant commercial air tour operator.--The term 
     `new entrant commercial air tour operator' means a commercial 
     air tour operator that--
       ``(A) applies for operating authority as a commercial air 
     tour operator for a national park; and
       ``(B) has not engaged in the business of providing 
     commercial air tour operations over the national park 
     (including tribal lands) in the 12-month period preceding the 
     application.
       ``(4) Commercial air tour operation.--The term `commercial 
     air tour operation' means any flight, conducted for 
     compensation or hire in a powered aircraft where a purpose of 
     the flight is sightseeing over a national park, within \1/2\ 
     mile outside the boundary of any national park, or over 
     tribal lands, during which the aircraft flies--
       ``(A) below a minimum altitude, determined by the 
     Administrator in cooperation with the Director, above ground 
     level (except solely for purposes of takeoff or landing, or 
     necessary for safe operation of an aircraft as determined 
     under the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration requiring the pilot-in-command to take action 
     to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft); or
       ``(B) less than 1 mile laterally from any geographic 
     feature within the park (unless more than \1/2\ mile outside 
     the boundary).
       ``(5) National park.--The term `national park' means any 
     unit of the National Park System.
       ``(6) Tribal lands.--The term `tribal lands' means Indian 
     country (as that term is defined in section 1151 of title 18) 
     that is within or abutting a national park.
       ``(7) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(8) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the National Park Service.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 401 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``40126. Overflights of national parks.''.

     SEC. 804. ADVISORY GROUP.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Director of 
     the National Park Service shall jointly establish an advisory 
     group to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect 
     to commercial air tour operations over and near national 
     parks.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The advisory group shall be composed of--
       (A) a balanced group of--
       (i) representatives of general aviation;
       (ii) representatives of commercial air tour operators;
       (iii) representatives of environmental concerns; and
       (iv) representatives of Indian tribes;
       (B) a representative of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration; and
       (C) a representative of the National Park Service.
       (2) Ex officio members.--The Administrator (or the designee 
     of the Administrator) and the Director (or the designee of 
     the Director) shall serve as ex officio members.
       (3) Chairperson.--The representative of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the representative of the 
     National Park Service shall serve alternating 1-year terms as 
     chairman of the advisory group, with the representative of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration serving initially until 
     the end of the calendar year following the year in which the 
     advisory group is first appointed.
       (c) Duties.--The advisory group shall provide advice, 
     information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the 
     Director--
       (1) on the implementation of this title and the amendments 
     made by this title;
       (2) on commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use 
     in commercial air tour operations over national parks 
     (including tribal lands), which will receive preferential 
     treatment in a given air tour management plan;
       (3) on other measures that might be taken to accommodate 
     the interests of visitors to national parks; and
       (4) at request of the Administrator and the Director, 
     safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial 
     air tour operations over a national park (including tribal 
     lands).
       (d) Compensation; Support; FACA.--
       (1) Compensation and travel.--Members of the advisory group 
     who are not officers or employees of the United States, while 
     attending conferences or meetings of the group or otherwise 
     engaged in its business, or while serving away from their 
     homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for persons in the Government service employed 
     intermittently.

[[Page 12876]]

       (2) Administrative support.--The Federal Aviation 
     Administration and the National Park Service shall jointly 
     furnish to the advisory group clerical and other assistance.
       (3) Nonapplication of faca.--Section 14 of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the 
     advisory group.

     SEC. 805. REPORTS.

       (a) Overflight Fee Report.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on the effects overflight fees 
     are likely to have on the commercial air tour operation 
     industry. The report shall include, but shall not be limited 
     to--
       (1) the viability of a tax credit for the commercial air 
     tour operators equal to the amount of any overflight fees 
     charged by the National Park Service; and
       (2) the financial effects proposed offsets are likely to 
     have on Federal Aviation Administration budgets and 
     appropriations.
       (b) Quiet Aircraft Technology Report.--Not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator and the Director shall jointly transmit a 
     report to Congress on the effectiveness of this title in 
     providing incentives for the development and use of quiet 
     aircraft technology.

     SEC. 806. EXEMPTIONS.

       This title shall not apply to--
       (1) any unit of the National Park System located in Alaska; 
     or
       (2) any other land or water located in Alaska.

     SEC. 807. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the National Park Service.

                      TITLE IX--TRUTH IN BUDGETING

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Truth in Budgeting Act''.

     SEC. 902. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986--
       (1) shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (B) the congressional budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided therein), or
       (C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985; and
       (2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States Government.

     SEC. 903. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT 
                   AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 471 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 47138. Safeguards against deficit spending

       ``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net 
     Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
       ``(1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the 
     unfunded aviation authorizations at the close of the first 
     fiscal year that begins after that March 31, and
       ``(2) the net aviation receipts to be credited to the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund during the fiscal year.
       ``(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Aviation 
     Authorizations.--If the Secretary of Transportation 
     determines for any fiscal year that the amount described in 
     subsection (a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection 
     (a)(2), the Secretary shall determine the amount of such 
     excess.
       ``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded 
     Authorizations Exceed Receipts.--
       ``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary 
     determines that there is an excess referred to in subsection 
     (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the 
     percentage which--
       ``(A) such excess, is of
       ``(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the 
     next fiscal year.
       ``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary 
     determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by such 
     percentage.
       ``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
       ``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--If, after a reduction 
     has been made under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary 
     determines that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) 
     does not exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or 
     that the excess referred to in subsection (b) is less than 
     the amount previously determined, each amount authorized to 
     be appropriated that was reduced under subsection (c)(2) 
     shall be increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that it may be so increased without 
     causing the amount described in subsection (a)(1) to exceed 
     the amount described in subsection (a)(2) (but not by more 
     than the amount of the reduction).
       ``(2) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts 
     made available for apportionment by paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under 
     paragraph (2) shall remain available for the period for which 
     they would be available if such apportionment took effect 
     with the fiscal year in which they are apportioned under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any 
     determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be 
     reported by the Secretary to Congress.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation 
     receipts' means, with respect to any period, the excess of--
       ``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund during such period, over
       ``(B) the amounts to be transferred during such period from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other than paragraph (1) 
     thereof).
       ``(2) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded 
     aviation authorization' means, at any time, the excess (if 
     any) of--
       ``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which has not been 
     appropriated, over
       ``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund at such time to make such appropriation (after all other 
     unliquidated obligations at such time which are payable from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund have been liquidated).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``47138. Safeguards against deficit spending.''.

     SEC. 904. APPLICABILITY.

       This title (including the amendments made by this Act) 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
     2000.

            TITLE X--ADJUSTMENT OF TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 1001. ADJUSTMENT OF TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Part C of subtitle VII is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

         ``CHAPTER 483--ADJUSTMENT OF TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS

``Sec.
``48301. Definitions.
``48302. Adjustments to align aviation authorizations with revenues.
``48303. Adjustment to AIP program funding.
``48304. Estimated aviation income.

     ``Sec. 48301. Definitions

       ``In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Base year.--The term `base year' means the second 
     fiscal year before the fiscal year for which the calculation 
     is being made.
       ``(2) AIP program.--The term `AIP program' means the 
     programs for which amounts are made available under section 
     48103.
       ``(3) Aviation income.--The term `aviation income' means 
     the tax receipts credited to the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and any interest attributable to the Fund.

     ``Sec. 48302. Adjustment to align aviation authorizations 
       with revenues

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Beginning with 
     fiscal year 2003, if the actual level of aviation income for 
     the base year is greater or less than the estimated aviation 
     income level specified in section 48304 for the base year, 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated (or made available) 
     for the fiscal year under each of sections 106(k), 48101, 
     48102, and 48103 are adjusted as follows:
       ``(1) If the actual level of aviation income for the base 
     year is greater than the estimated aviation income level 
     specified in section 48304 for the base year, the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated (or made available) for such 
     section is increased by an amount determined by multiplying 
     the amount of the excess by the ratio for such section set 
     forth in subsection (b).
       ``(2) If the actual level of aviation income for the base 
     year is less than the estimated aviation income level 
     specified in section 48304 for the base year, the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated (or made available) for such 
     section is decreased by an amount determined by multiplying 
     the amount of the shortfall by the ratio for such section set 
     forth in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Ratio.--The ratio referred to in subsection (a) with 
     respect to section 106(k), 48101, 48102, or 48103, as the 
     case may be, is the ratio that--
       ``(1) the amount authorized to be appropriated (or made 
     available) under such section for the fiscal year; bears to
       ``(2) the total sum of amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated (or made available) under all of such sections 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(c) President's Budget.--When the President submits a 
     budget for a fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall calculate and the budget shall report any 
     increase or decrease in authorization levels resulting from 
     this section.

     ``Sec. 48303. Adjustment to AIP program funding

       ``On the effective date of a general appropriations Act 
     providing appropriations for a fiscal year beginning after 
     September 30, 2000, for the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     the amount made available for a fiscal year under section 
     48103 shall be increased by the amount, if any, by which--

[[Page 12877]]

       ``(1) the total sum of amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under all of sections 106(k), 48101, and 48102 
     for such fiscal year, including adjustments made under 
     section 48302; exceeds
       ``(2) the amounts appropriated for programs funded under 
     such sections for such fiscal year.

     Any contract authority made available by this section shall 
     be subject to an obligation limitation.

     ``Sec. 48304. Estimated aviation income

       ``For purposes of section 48302, the estimated aviation 
     income levels are as follows:
       ``(1) $10,734,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(2) $11,603,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(3) $12,316,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       ``(4) $13,062,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for 
     subtitle VII of such title is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to chapter 482 the following:

``483. Adjustment of Trust Fund Authorizations.............48301''.....

     SEC. 1002. BUDGET ESTIMATES.

       Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall not make any estimates under 
     section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 of changes in direct spending outlays and 
     receipts for any fiscal year resulting from this title and 
     title IX, including the amendments made by such titles.

     SEC. 1003. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FULLY OFFSETTING INCREASED 
                   AVIATION SPENDING.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) air passengers and other users of the air 
     transportation system pay aviation taxes into a trust fund 
     dedicated solely to improve the safety, security, and 
     efficiency of the aviation system;
       (2) from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2004, air 
     passengers and other users will pay more than $14.3 billion 
     more in aviation taxes into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     than the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2000 provides from such Fund for aviation investment under 
     historical funding patterns;
       (3) the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
     Century provides $14.3 billion of aviation investment above 
     the levels assumed in that budget resolution for such fiscal 
     years; and
       (4) this increased funding will be fully offset by 
     recapturing unspent aviation taxes and reducing the $778 
     billion general tax cut assumed in that budget resolution by 
     the appropriate amount.

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

     SEC. 1101. 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, 2004'', and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A) the following ``or the provisions of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 providing for payments from the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund or the Interim Federal Aviation 
     Administration Authorization Act or section 6002 of the 1999 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act or the Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century''.
       (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. No further amendments shall be in order except those 
printed in part B of that report. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-185.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Shuster:
       At the end of section 102 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Alaska National Air Space Communications System.--
     Section 48101 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Alaska National Air Space Communications System.--Of 
     the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for fiscal year 
     2001, $7,200,000 may be used by the Administrator for the 
     Alaska National Air Space Interfacility Communications System 
     if the Administrator issues a report supporting the use of 
     such funds for the System.''.
       (d) Automated Surface Observation System/Automated Weather 
     Observing System Upgrade.--Section 48101 is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Automated Surface Observation System/Automated 
     Weather Observing System Upgrade.--Of the amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 2000, such sums as may be necessary for 
     the implementation and use of upgrades to the current 
     automated surface observation system/automated weather 
     observing system, if the upgrade is successfully 
     demonstrated.''.
       In the matter to be added by section 103(a)(3) of the bill 
     as paragraph (2) of section 106(k) of title 49, United States 
     Code, strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F)(ii) and 
     strike the period at the end of subparagraph (G) and insert 
     ``; and'' and the following:
       ``(H) such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary to 
     hire additional inspectors in order to enhance air cargo 
     security programs.
       At the end of section 103 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (d) Office of Airline Information.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to the 
     Secretary $4,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2000, to fund the activities of the Office of 
     Airline Information in the Bureau of Transportation 
     Statistics of the Department of Transportation.
       In section 104(h) of the bill, strike paragraph (1) and 
     insert the following:
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``31 percent'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``34 percent'';
       (B) in the first sentence by striking ``and for carrying 
     out'' and inserting ``, for carrying out''; and
       (C) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence 
     and inserting the following: ``, and for noise mitigation 
     projects approved in the environmental record of decision for 
     an airport development project under this chapter.''.
       In section 122 of the bill, strike ``and'' the last place 
     it appears.
       In section 123(c)(1) of the bill, strike the period 
     following ``landing light systems'' and insert ``; and''.
       In section 130(a)(1) of the bill, strike ``12 for fiscal 
     year 2000'' and insert ``15 for fiscal year 2000''.
       In section 130(a) of the bill, in the matter to be added as 
     section 47118(f) of title 49, United States Code, strike ``at 
     least 3 of the airports designated under subsection (a)'' and 
     insert ``1 airport of the airports designated under 
     subsection (a) for fiscal year 2000 and 3 airports for each 
     fiscal year thereafter''.
       In section 134 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be 
     added as section 47137 of title 49, United States Code, 
     redesignate subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (e) 
     through (h), respectively, and insert after subsection (c) 
     the following:
       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The sponsor of a public-use airport 
     carrying out inherently low-emission vehicle activities under 
     the pilot program may use not to exceed 10 percent of the 
     amounts made available for expenditure at the airport in a 
     fiscal year under the pilot program to receive technical 
     assistance in carrying out such activities.
       ``(2) Eligible consortium.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, a sponsor shall use an eligible consortium (as 
     defined in section 5506 of this title) in the region of the 
     airport to receive technical assistance described in 
     paragraph (1).
       At the end of subtitle B of title I of the bill, add the 
     following (and conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 137. INTERMODAL CONNECTIONS.

       (a) Airport Improvement Policy.--Section 47101(a)(5) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) to encourage the development of intermodal 
     connections between airports and other transportation modes 
     and systems to promote economic development in a way that 
     will serve States and local communities efficiently and 
     effectively;''.
       (b) Airport Development Defined.--Section 47102(3) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 12878]]

       ``(I) constructing, reconstructing, or improving an 
     airport, or purchasing capital equipment for an airport, for 
     the purpose of transferring passengers, cargo, or baggage 
     between the airport and ground transportation modes.''.

     SEC. 138. STATE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 47128(a) is amended by striking ``9 qualified'' and 
     inserting ``10 qualified''.

     SEC. 139. ENGINEERED MATERIALS ARRESTING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 47102(3)(B) (as amended by this 
     Act) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ix) engineered materials arresting systems as described 
     in the Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-22 published by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration on August 21, 1998.''.
       (b) Rulemaking.--The Administrator shall initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding to consider revisions to part 139 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to improve runway 
     safety through the use of engineered materials arresting 
     systems, longer runways, and such other techniques as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       In section 153(a)(1) of the bill, strike ``1999 through 
     2004'' and insert ``2000 through 2002''.
       At the end of subtitle C of title I of the bill add the 
     following (and conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 157. AIRCRAFT NOISE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY MILITARY 
                   AIRCRAFT.

       Section 47504(c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Aircraft noise primarily caused by military 
     aircraft.--The Administrator may make a grant under this 
     subsection for a project even if the purpose of the project 
     is to mitigate the effect of noise primarily caused by 
     military aircraft at an airport.''.

     SEC. 158. TIMELY ANNOUNCEMENT OF GRANTS.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall announce the making 
     of grants with funds made available under section 48103 of 
     title 49, United States Code, in a timely fashion after 
     receiving necessary documentation for the making of such 
     grants from the Administrator.
       At the end of title III of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 308. FAILURE TO MEET RULEMAKING DEADLINE.

       Section 106(f)(3)(A) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If the Administrator does not meet a deadline 
     specified in this subparagraph, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to Congress notification of the missed deadline, 
     including an explanation for missing the deadline and a 
     projected date on which the action that was subject to the 
     deadline will be taken.''.

     SEC. 309. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY ACT.

       Section 348(b)(2) of the Department of Transportation and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (49 U.S.C. 40110 
     note; 109 Stat. 460) is amended by striking the period and 
     inserting the following: ``, other than section 27 of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423); 
     except that subsections (f) and (g) of such section 27 shall 
     not apply to the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     acquisition management system. Within 90 days following the 
     date of enactment of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act 
     for the 21st Century, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall adopt definitions for the 
     acquisition management system that are consistent with the 
     purpose and intent of this section and that will allow the 
     application of the criminal, civil and administrative 
     remedies provided. The Administrator shall have the authority 
     to take an adverse personnel action provided in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A)(iv) of such section 27, but shall take any such 
     actions in accordance with the procedures contained in the 
     Federal Aviation Administration's personnel management 
     system.''.
       In the matter to be added by section 507(a) of the bill to 
     chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, as section 
     44725(b)(4) of the bill, insert ``every time the part is 
     removed from service or'' after ``updated''.
       In section 507(b)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed to 
     be added as section 46301(a)(3)(C) of title 49, United States 
     Code, strike ``or''.
       In section 508 of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as 
     section 46316 of title 49, United States Code--
       (1) insert ``(a) Civil Penalty.--'' before ``An 
     individual''; and
       (2) strike the closing quotation marks and the final period 
     at the end of subsection (a) (as so designated) and insert 
     the following:
       ``(b) Ban on Flying.--If the Secretary finds that an 
     individual has interfered with the duties or responsibilities 
     of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft in a way 
     that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft 
     or individuals aboard the aircraft, the individual may be 
     banned by the Secretary for a period of 1 year from flying on 
     any aircraft operated by an air carrier.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     to carry out subsection (b), including establishing 
     procedures for imposing bans on flying, implementing such 
     bans, and providing notification to air carriers of the 
     imposition of such bans.''.
       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 511. LANDFILLS INTERFERING WITH AIR COMMERCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) collisions between aircraft and birds have resulted in 
     fatal accidents;
       (2) bird strikes pose a special danger to smaller aircraft;
       (3) landfills near airports pose a potential hazard to 
     aircraft operating there because they attract birds;
       (4) even if the landfill is not located in the approach 
     path of the airport's runway, it still poses a hazard because 
     of the birds' ability to fly away from the landfill and into 
     the path of oncoming planes;
       (5) while certain mileage limits have the potential to be 
     arbitrary, keeping landfills at least 6 miles away from an 
     airport, especially an airport served by small planes, is an 
     appropriate minimum requirement for aviation safety; and
       (6) closure of existing landfills (due to concerns about 
     aviation safety) should be avoided because of the likely 
     disruption to those who use and depend on such landfills.
       (b) Limitation on Construction.--Section 44718(d) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Limitation on Construction of Landfills.--
       ``(1) In general.--No person shall construct or establish a 
     landfill within 6 miles of an airport primarily served by 
     general aviation aircraft or aircraft designed for 60 
     passengers or less unless the State aviation agency of the 
     State in which the airport is located requests that the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration exempt 
     the landfill from this prohibition and the Administrator, in 
     response to such a request, determines that the landfill 
     would not have an adverse impact on aviation safety.
       ``(2) Limitation on applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to construction or establishment of a landfill if a 
     permit relating to construction or establishment of such 
     landfill was issued on or before June 1, 1999.''.
       (c) Civil Penalty for Violations of Limitation on 
     Construction of Landfills.--Section 46301(a)(3) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a violation of section 41718(d), relating to 
     limitation on construction of landfills; or''.

     SEC. 512. AMENDMENT OF STATUTE PROHIBITING THE BRINGING OF 
                   HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ABOARD AN AIRCRAFT.

       Section 46312 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``(a) General.--
     A person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Knowledge of Regulations.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), knowledge by the person of the existence of a regulation 
     or requirement related to the transportation of hazardous 
     material prescribed by the Secretary under this part is not 
     an element of an offense under this section but shall be 
     considered in mitigation of the penalty.''.

     SEC. 513. AIRPORT SAFETY NEEDS.

       The Administrator shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
     consider revisions of part 139 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, to meet current and future airport safety 
     needs--
       (1) focusing, but not limited to, on the mission of rescue 
     personnel, rescue operations response time, and extinguishing 
     equipment; and
       (2) taking into account the need for different requirements 
     for airports depending on their size.

     SEC. 514. LIMITATION ON ENTRY INTO MAINTENANCE IMPLEMENTATION 
                   PROCEDURES.

       The Administrator may not enter into any maintenance 
     implementation procedure through a bilateral aviation safety 
     agreement unless the Administrator determines that the 
     participating nations are inspecting repair stations so as to 
     ensure their compliance with the standards of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration.

     SEC. 515. OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES OF AIRPORT WORKERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study to 
     determine the number of persons working at airports who are 
     injured or killed as a result of being struck by a moving 
     vehicle while on an airport tarmac, the seriousness of the 
     injuries to such persons, and whether or not reflective 
     safety vests or other actions should be required to enhance 
     the safety of such workers.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     this section.

     SEC. 516. AIRPORT DISPATCHERS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study of the 
     role of airport dispatchers in enhancing aviation safety. The 
     study shall include an assessment of whether or not aircraft 
     dispatchers should be required for those operations not 
     presently requiring aircraft dispatcher assistance, 
     operational control issues related to the aircraft 
     dispatching function, and whether or not designation of 
     positions within the Federal Aviation Administration for 
     oversight of dispatchers would enhance aviation safety.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
     this section.

[[Page 12879]]



     SEC. 517. IMPROVED TRAINING FOR AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT 
                   MECHANICS.

       The Administrator shall form a partnership with industry to 
     develop a model program to improve the curriculum, teaching 
     methods, and quality of instructors for training individuals 
     that need certification as airframe and powerplant mechanics.
       In section 702(a) of the bill, in the proposed section 
     40102(a)(38) of title 49, United States Code, strike the 
     closing quotation marks and the final period and insert the 
     following:
       ``(E) owned by the armed forces or chartered to provide 
     transportation to the armed forces under the conditions 
     specified by section 40125(d).''.
       In section 702(b) of the bill, in the matter to be added as 
     section 40125(a) of title 49, United States Code--
       (1) in paragraph (1) after ``does not include the operation 
     of an aircraft'' insert ``by the armed forces for 
     reimbursement when that reimbursement is required by Federal 
     law or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) after ``such as'' insert ``national defense, 
     intelligence missions,''; and
       (B) after ``law enforcement'' insert ``(including transport 
     of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens)''.
       In section 702(b) of the bill, at the end of the matter to 
     be added as section 40125(a) of title 49, United States Code, 
     add the following:
       ``(4) Armed forces.--The term `armed forces' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 101 of title 10.
       In section 702(b) of the bill, in the matter to be added as 
     section 40125(c), strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     final period and insert the following:
       ``(d) Aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces.--An 
     aircraft described in section 40102(38)(E) qualifies as a 
     public aircraft if--
       ``(1) the aircraft is operated in accordance with title 10; 
     or
       ``(2) the aircraft is chartered to provide transportation 
     to the armed forces and the Secretary of Defense (or the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating) designates the operation of the aircraft as being 
     required in the national interest.''.
       At the end of section 702 of the bill, add the following:
       (c) Safety of Public Aircraft.--
       (1) Study.--The National Transportation Safety Board shall 
     conduct a study to compare the safety of public aircraft and 
     civil aircraft. In conducting the study, the Board shall 
     review safety statistics on aircraft operations since 1993.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Transportation Safety 
     Board shall transmit to Congress a report containing the 
     results of the study conducted under paragraph (1).
       Strike section 706(c) of the bill and insert the following:
       (c) Discrimination Against Handicapped Individuals by 
     Foreign Air Carriers.--Section 41705 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) General Prohibition.--'' before ``In 
     providing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Prohibition Applicable to Foreign Air Carriers.--
     Subject to section 40105(b), the prohibition on 
     discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual set 
     forth in subsection (a) shall apply to a foreign air carrier 
     in providing foreign air transportation.''.
       In section 706(d) of the bill, in the matter to be added as 
     section 46301(a)(3)(D) of title 49, United States Code, 
     strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       In section 711 of the bill, in the matter to be inserted as 
     subsection (c)(1), strike ``date of birth''.
       At the end of title VII of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 732. CINCINNATI-MUNICIPAL BLUE ASH AIRPORT.

       (a) Approval of Sale.--To maintain the efficient 
     utilization of airports in the high-growth Cincinnati local 
     airport system, and to ensure that the Cincinnati-Municipal 
     Blue Ash Airport continues to operate to relieve congestion 
     at Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport and to 
     provide greater access to the general aviation community 
     beyond the expiration of the city of Cincinnati's grant 
     obligations, the Secretary of Transportation may approve the 
     sale of Cincinnati-Municipal Blue Ash Airport from the city 
     of Cincinnati to the city of Blue Ash upon a finding that the 
     city of Blue Ash meets all applicable requirements for 
     sponsorship and if the city of Blue Ash agrees to continue to 
     maintain and operate Blue Ash Airport, as generally 
     contemplated and described within the Blue Ash Master Plan 
     Update dated November 30, 1998, for a period of 20 years from 
     the date existing grant assurance obligations of the city of 
     Cincinnati expire.
       (b) Treatment of Proceeds From Sale.--The proceeds from the 
     sale approved under subsection (a) shall not be considered to 
     be airport revenue for purposes of section 47107 and 47133 of 
     title 49, United States Code, grant obligations of the city 
     of Cincinnati, or regulations and policies of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration.

     SEC. 733. AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT PARTS FOR USE IN RESPONDING 
                   TO OIL SPILLS.

       (a) Authority To Sell.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 202 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     483) and subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
     Defense may, during the period beginning June 15, 1999, and 
     ending September 30, 2002, sell aircraft and aircraft parts 
     referred to in paragraph (2) to a person or governmental 
     entity that contracts to deliver oil dispersants by air in 
     order to disperse oil spills, and that has been approved by 
     the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating for the delivery of oil dispersants by air in order 
     to disperse oil spills.
       (2) Covered aircraft and aircraft parts.--The aircraft and 
     aircraft parts that may be sold under paragraph (1) are 
     aircraft and aircraft parts of the Department of Defense that 
     are determined by the Secretary of Defense to be--
       (A) excess to the needs of the Department;
       (B) acceptable for commercial sale; and
       (C) with respect to aircraft, 10 years old or older.
       (b) Conditions of Sale.--Aircraft and aircraft parts sold 
     under subsection (a)--
       (1) may be used only for oil spill spotting, observation, 
     and dispersant delivery; and
       (2) may not be flown outside of or removed from the United 
     States, except for the purpose of fulfilling an international 
     agreement to assist in oil spill dispersing efforts or for 
     other purposes that are jointly approved by the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Transportation.
       (c) Certification of persons and entities.--The Secretary 
     of Defense may sell aircraft and aircraft parts to a person 
     or governmental entity under subsection (a) only if the 
     Secretary of Transportation certifies to the Secretary of 
     Defense, in writing, before the sale, that the person or 
     governmental entity is capable of meeting the terms and 
     conditions of a contract to deliver oil spill dispersants by 
     air.
       (d) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Administrator of General Services, shall issue regulations 
     relating to the sale of aircraft and aircraft parts under 
     this section.
       (2) Contents.--The regulations shall--
       (A) ensure that the sale of the aircraft and aircraft parts 
     is made at a fair market value as determined by the Secretary 
     of Defense, and, to the extent practicable, on a competitive 
     basis;
       (B) require a certification by the purchaser that the 
     aircraft and aircraft parts will be used in accordance with 
     the conditions set forth in subsection (b);
       (C) establish appropriate means of verifying and enforcing 
     the use of the aircraft and aircraft parts by the purchaser 
     and other users in accordance with the conditions set forth 
     in subsection (b) or pursuant to subsection (e); and
       (D) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the 
     Secretary of Defense consults with the Administrator of 
     General Services and with the heads of other appropriate 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government regarding 
     alternative uses for such aircraft and aircraft parts before 
     the sale of such aircraft and aircraft parts under this 
     section.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may require such other terms and conditions in 
     connection with each sale of aircraft and aircraft parts 
     under this section as the Secretary of Defense considers 
     appropriate for such sale. Such terms and conditions shall 
     meet the requirements of regulations issued under subsection 
     (d).
       (f) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2002, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services 
     and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives a report on the Secretary of Defense's 
     exercise of authority under this section. The report shall 
     set forth--
       (1) the number and types of aircraft sold under this 
     section, and the terms and conditions under which the 
     aircraft were sold;
       (2) the persons or entities to which the aircraft were 
     sold; and
       (3) an accounting of the current use of the aircraft sold.
       (g) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     as affecting the authority of the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration under any other provision of 
     law.
       (h) Proceeds From Sale.--The net proceeds of any amounts 
     received by the Secretary of Defense from the sale of 
     aircraft and aircraft parts under this section shall be 
     deposited into the general fund of the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.

     SEC. 734. DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BY COMPUTER RESERVATIONS 
                   SYSTEMS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Actions Against Discriminatory Activity by Foreign CRS 
     Systems.--Section 41310 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page 12880]]

       ``(g) Actions Against Discriminatory Activity by Foreign 
     CRS Systems.--The Secretary of Transportation may take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers are in the public interest 
     to eliminate an activity of a foreign air carrier that owns 
     or markets a computer reservations system, or of a computer 
     reservations system firm whose principal offices are located 
     outside the United States, when the Secretary, on the 
     initiative of the Secretary or on complaint, decides that the 
     activity, with respect to airline service--
       ``(1) is an unjustifiable or unreasonable discriminatory, 
     predatory, or anticompetitive practice against a computer 
     reservations system firm whose principal offices are located 
     inside the United States; or
       ``(2) imposes an unjustifiable or unreasonable restriction 
     on access of such a computer reservations system to a foreign 
     market.''.
       (b) Complaints by CRS Firms.--Section 41310 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``air carrier'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``air carrier, computer reservations system 
     firm,'';
       (B) by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c) or (g)''; and
       (C) by striking ``air carrier'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``air carrier or computer reservations system 
     firm''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1) by inserting ``or a computer 
     reservations system firm is subject when providing services 
     with respect to airline service'' before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence.

     SEC. 735. ALKALI SILICA REACTIVITY DISTRESS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator may make a grant to, or 
     enter into a cooperative agreement with, a nonprofit 
     organization for the conduct of a study on the impact of 
     alkali silica reactivity distress on airport runways and 
     taxiways and the use of lithium salts and other alternatives 
     for mitigation and prevention of such distress.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after making a grant, 
     or entering into a cooperative agreement, under subsection 
     (a) the Administrator shall transmit a report to Congress on 
     the results of the study.

     SEC. 736. PROCUREMENT OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE MAPPING, 
                   CHARTING, AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

       The Administrator shall consider procuring mapping, 
     charting, and geographic information systems necessary to 
     carry out the duties of the Administrator under title 49, 
     United States Code, from private enterprises, if the 
     Administrator determines that such procurement furthers the 
     mission of the Federal Aviation Administration and is cost 
     effective.

     SEC. 737. LAND USE COMPLIANCE REPORT.

       Section 47131 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) a detailed statement listing airports that are not in 
     compliance with grant assurances or other requirements with 
     respect to airport lands and including the circumstances of 
     such noncompliance, the timelines for corrective action, and 
     the corrective action the Secretary intends to take to bring 
     the airport sponsor into compliance.''.

     SEC. 738. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION DATA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.

       Of the amounts made available pursuant to section 
     5117(b)(6)(B) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (23 U.S.C. 502 note; 112 Stat. 450), not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 may be made 
     available by the Secretary of Transportation to establish, at 
     an Army depot that has been closed or realigned, a national 
     transportation data center of excellence that will--
       (1) serve as a satellite facility for the central data 
     repository that is hosted by the computer center of the 
     Transportation Administrative Service; and
       (2) analyze transportation data collected by the Federal 
     Government, States, cities, and the transportation industry.

     SEC. 739. MONROE REGIONAL AIRPORT LAND CONVEYANCE.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall waive all terms 
     contained in the 1949 deed of conveyance under which the 
     United States conveyed certain property then constituting 
     Selman Field, Louisiana, to the city of Monroe, Louisiana, 
     subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The city agrees that in conveying any interest in such 
     property the city will receive an amount for such interest 
     that is equal to the fair market value for such interest.
       (2) The amount received by the city for such conveyance 
     shall be used by the city--
       (A) for the development, improvement, operation, or 
     maintenance of a public airport; or
       (B) for the development or improvement of the city's 
     airport industrial park co-located with the Monroe Regional 
     Airport to the extent that such development or improvement 
     will result in an increase, over time, in the amount the 
     industrial park will pay to the airport to an amount that is 
     greater than the amount the city received for such 
     conveyance.

     SEC. 740. AUTOMATED WEATHER FORECASTING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Contract for Study.--The Administrator shall contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of 
     the effectiveness of the automated weather forecasting 
     systems of covered flight service stations solely with regard 
     to providing safe and reliable airport operations.
       (b) Covered Flight Service Stations.--In this section, the 
     term ``covered flight service station'' means a flight 
     service station where automated weather observation 
     constitutes the entire observation and no additional weather 
     information is added by a human weather observer.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     the Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 741. NOISE STUDY OF SKY HARBOR AIRPORT, PHOENIX, 
                   ARIZONA.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall conduct a study on recent changes to the 
     flight patterns of aircraft using Sky Harbor Airport in 
     Phoenix, Arizona, and the effects of such changes on the 
     noise contours in the Phoenix, Arizona, region.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment 
     of this section, the Administrator shall submit a report to 
     Congress containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) and recommendations for measures to mitigate 
     aircraft noise over populated areas in the Phoenix, Arizona, 
     region.
       (2) Availability to the public.--The Administrator shall 
     make the report described in paragraph (1) available to the 
     public.

     SEC. 742. NONMILITARY HELICOPTER NOISE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     conduct a study--
       (1) on the effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise on 
     individuals; and
       (2) to develop recommendations for the reduction of the 
     effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise.
       (b) Consideration of Views.--In conducting the study under 
     this section, the Secretary shall consider the views of 
     representatives of the helicopter industry and 
     representatives of organizations with an interest in reducing 
     nonmilitary helicopter noise.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study under this 
     section.
       At the end of section 40126(e) to be added to chapter 401 
     of title 49, United States Code, by section 803(a) of the 
     bill, insert the following:
       ``(3) Lake mead.--This section shall not apply to any air 
     tour operator while flying over or near the Lake Mead 
     National Recreation Area solely, as a transportation route, 
     to conduct an air tour over the Grand Canyon National Park.
       In title VIII of the bill, redesignate section 806 and 807 
     as sections 807 and 808, respectively, and insert after 
     section 805 the following:

     SEC. 806. METHODOLOGIES USED TO ASSESS AIR TOUR NOISE.

       Any methodology adopted by a Federal agency to assess air 
     tour noise in any unit of the national park system (including 
     the Grand Canyon and Alaska) shall be based on reasonable 
     scientific methods.
       Strike section 202 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 202. FUNDING FOR AIR CARRIER SERVICE TO AIRPORTS NOT 
                   RECEIVING SUFFICIENT SERVICE.

       (a) Funding for Airports Not Receiving Sufficient 
     Service.--Chapter 417 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 41743. Airports not receiving sufficient service

       ``(a) Types of Assistance.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may use amounts made available under this section--
       ``(1) to provide assistance to an air carrier to subsidize 
     service to and from an underserved airport for a period not 
     to exceed 3 years;
       ``(2) to provide assistance to an underserved airport to 
     obtain jet aircraft service (and to promote passenger use of 
     that service) to and from the underserved airport; and
       ``(3) to provide assistance to an underserved airport to 
     implement such other measures as the Secretary, in 
     consultation with such airport, considers appropriate to 
     improve air service both in terms of the cost of such service 
     to consumers and the availability of such service, including 
     improving air service through marketing and promotion of air 
     service and enhanced utilization of airport facilities.
       ``(b) Priority Criteria For Assisting Airports Not 
     Receiving Sufficient Service.--In providing assistance to 
     airports under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give 
     priority to those airports for which a community will 
     provide, from local sources (other than airport revenues), a 
     portion of the cost of the activity to be assisted.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Underserved airport.--The term `underserved airport' 
     means a nonhub airport or small hub airport (as such terms 
     are defined in section 41731) that--

[[Page 12881]]

       ``(A) the Secretary determines is not receiving sufficient 
     air carrier service; or
       ``(B) has unreasonably high airfares.
       ``(2) Unreasonably high airfare.--The term `unreasonably 
     high airfare', as used with respect to an airport, means that 
     the airfare listed in the table entitled `Top 1,000 City-Pair 
     Market Summarized by City', contained in the Domestic Airline 
     Fares Consumer Report of the Department of Transportation, 
     for one or more markets for which the airport is a part of 
     has an average yield listed in such table that is more than 
     19 cents.
       ``(d) Authority To Make Agreements and Incur Obligations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make agreements and 
     incur obligations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to 
     provide assistance under this section. An agreement by the 
     Secretary under this subsection is a contractual obligation 
     of the Government to pay the Government's share of the 
     compensation. Contract authority made available by this 
     paragraph shall be subject to an obligation limitation.
       ``(2) Amounts made available.--There shall be available to 
     the Secretary out of the Fund not more than $25,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to incur obligations 
     under this section. Amounts made available under this section 
     shall remain available until expended.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
``41743. Airports not receiving sufficient service.''.
       In section 211(a) of the bill, in the second sentence of 
     the matter proposed to be added as section 41763(b)(1)(E), 
     insert ``, subject to appropriations,'' after ``the 
     Secretary''.
       In section 211(a) of the bill, in the second sentence of 
     the matter proposed to be added as section 41763(c)(3), 
     insert ``, subject to appropriations,'' after ``the 
     Secretary''.
       In section 211(a) of the bill, in the second sentence of 
     the matter proposed to be added as section 41763(d)(2)(G), 
     insert ``, subject to appropriations,'' after ``the 
     Secretary''.
       Redesignate section 904 of the bill as section 905 and 
     insert after section 903 of the bill the following (and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 904. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       When the President submits the budget under section 1105(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2001, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, calculate and the 
     budget shall include appropriate reductions to the 
     discretionary spending limits for each of fiscal years 2001 
     and 2002 set forth in section 251(c)(5)(A) and section 
     251(c)(6)(A) of that Act (as adjusted under section 251 of 
     that Act) to reflect the discretionary baseline trust fund 
     spending (without any adjustment for inflation) for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration that is subject to section 
     902 of this Act for each of those two fiscal years.
       Strike section 201 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. ACCESS TO HIGH DENSITY AIRPORTS.

       (a) Phaseout of Slot Rule for O'Hare, LaGuardia, and 
     Kennedy Airports.--Section 41714 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Phaseout of Slot Rule for O'Hare, LaGuardia, and 
     Kennedy Airports.--
       ``(1) O'hare airport.--The slot rule shall be of no force 
     and effect at O'Hare International Airport--
       ``(A) effective March 1, 2000--
       ``(i) with respect to a regional jet aircraft providing air 
     transportation between O'Hare International Airport and a 
     small hub or nonhub airport--

       ``(I) if the operator of the regional jet aircraft was not 
     providing such air transportation during the week of June 15, 
     1999; or
       ``(II) if the level of air transportation to be provided 
     between such airports by the operator of the regional jet 
     aircraft during any week will exceed the level of air 
     transportation provided by such operator between such 
     airports during the week of June 15, 1999; and

       ``(ii) with respect to any aircraft providing foreign air 
     transportation;
       ``(B) effective March 1, 2001, with respect to any aircraft 
     operating before 2:45 post meridiem and after 8:15 post 
     meridiem; and
       ``(C) effective March 1, 2002, with respect to any 
     aircraft.
       ``(2) Laguardia and kennedy.--The slot rule shall be of no 
     force and effect at LaGuardia Airport or John F. Kennedy 
     International Airport--
       ``(A) effective March 1, 2000, with respect to a regional 
     jet aircraft providing air transportation between LaGuardia 
     Airport or John F. Kennedy International Airport and a small 
     hub or nonhub airport--

       ``(I) if the operator of the regional jet aircraft was not 
     providing such air transportation during the week of June 15, 
     1999; or
       ``(II) if the level of air transportation to be provided 
     between such airports by the operator of the regional jet 
     aircraft during any week will exceed the level of air 
     transportation provided by such operator between such 
     airports during the week of June 15, 1999; and

       ``(B) effective January 1, 2007, with respect to any 
     aircraft.''.
       (b) Additional Exemptions From Slot Rule.--Section 41714 is 
     amended by striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Additional Exemptions From Slot Rule.--
       ``(1) Slot exemptions for airports not receiving sufficient 
     service.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding chapter 491, the 
     Secretary may by order grant exemptions from the slot rule 
     for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and O'Hare 
     International Airport to enable air carriers to provide 
     nonstop air transportation using jet aircraft that comply 
     with the stage 3 noise levels of part 36 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, between the airport and a small hub or 
     nonhub airport that the Secretary determines has (i) 
     insufficient air carrier service to and from Reagan National 
     Airport or O'Hare International Airport, as the case may be, 
     or (ii) unreasonably high airfares.
       ``(B) Number of slot exemptions to be granted.--
       ``(i) Reagan national.--

       ``(I) Maximum number of exemptions.--No more than 2 
     exemptions from the slot rule per hour and no more than 6 
     exemptions from the slot rule per day may be granted under 
     this paragraph for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
       ``(II) Maximum distance of flights.--An exemption from the 
     slot rule may be granted under this paragraph for Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport only if the flight 
     utilizing the exemption begins or ends within 1,250 miles of 
     such airport and a stage 3 aircraft is used for such flight.

       ``(ii) O'Hare airport.--20 exemptions from the slot rule 
     per day shall be granted under this paragraph for O'Hare 
     International Airport.
       ``(2) Slot exemptions at o'hare for new entrant air 
     carriers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall grant 30 exemptions 
     from the slot rule to enable new entrant air carriers to 
     provide air transportation at O'Hare International Airport 
     using stage 3 aircraft.
       ``(B) Priority consideration.--In granting exemptions under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall give priority 
     consideration to an application from an air carrier that, as 
     of June 15, 1999, operated or held fewer than 20 slots at 
     O'Hare International Airport.
       ``(3) Insufficient applications.--If, on the 180th day 
     following the date of enactment of the Aviation Investment 
     and Reform Act for the 21st Century, the Secretary has not 
     granted all of the exemptions from the slot rule made 
     available under this subsection at an airport because an 
     insufficient number of eligible applicants have submitted 
     applications for the exemptions, the Secretary may grant the 
     remaining exemptions at the airport to any air carrier 
     applying for the exemptions for the provision of any type of 
     air transportation. An exemption granted under paragraph (1) 
     or (2) pursuant to this paragraph may be reclaimed by the 
     Secretary for issuance in accordance with the terms of 
     paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, if subsequent 
     applications under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case maybe, 
     so warrant.
       ``(f) Requirements Relating to Additional Slot 
     Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Applications.--An air carrier interested in obtaining 
     an exemption from the slot rule under subsection (e) shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application for the exemption. No 
     application may be submitted to the Secretary under 
     subsection (e) before the last day of the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of the Aviation Investment 
     and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
       ``(2) Period of effectiveness.--An exemption from the slot 
     rule granted under subsection (e) shall remain in effect only 
     while the air carrier for whom the exemption is granted 
     continues to provide the air transportation for which the 
     exemption is granted.
       ``(3) Treatment of certain commuter air carriers.--The 
     Secretary shall treat all commuter air carriers that have 
     cooperative agreements, including code share agreements with 
     other air carriers, equally for determining eligibility for 
     exemptions from the slot rule under subsection (e) regardless 
     of the form of the corporate relationship between the 
     commuter air carrier and the other air carrier.''.
       (c) Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41714(h) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' means an 
     airport that each year has less than .05 percent of the total 
     annual boardings in the United States.
       ``(6) Regional jet aircraft.--The term `regional jet 
     aircraft' means a 2-engine jet aircraft with a design 
     capacity of 70 or fewer seats, manufactured after January 1, 
     1992, that has an effective perceived noise level on takeoff 
     not exceeding 83 decibels when measured according to the 
     procedures described in part 36 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(7) Slot rule.--The term `slot rule' means the 
     requirements of subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(8) Small hub airport.--The term `small hub airport' 
     means an airport that each year

[[Page 12882]]

     has at least .05 percent, but less than .25 percent, of the 
     total annual boardings in the United States.
       ``(9) Unreasonably high airfare.--The term `unreasonably 
     high airfare', as used with respect to an airport, means that 
     the airfare listed in the table entitled `Top 1,000 City-Pair 
     Market Summarized by City', contained in the Domestic Airline 
     Fares Consumer Report of the Department of Transportation, 
     for one or more markets for which the airport is a part of 
     has an average yield listed in such table that is more than 
     19 cents.''.
       (2) Regulatory definition of limited incumbent carrier.--
     The Secretary shall modify the definition of the term 
     ``limited incumbent carrier'' in subpart S of part 93 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to require an air 
     carrier or commuter operator to hold or operate fewer than 20 
     slots (instead of 12 slots) to meet the criteria of the 
     definition. For purposes of this section, such modification 
     shall be treated as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Prohibition on Slot Withdrawals.--Section 41714(b) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``at O'Hare International Airport'' after 
     ``a slot''; and
       (B) by striking ``if the withdrawal'' and all that follows 
     before the period; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Conversion of slots.--Effective March 1, 2000, slots 
     at O'Hare International Airport allocated to an air carrier 
     as of June 15, 1999, to provide foreign air transportation 
     shall be made available to such carrier to provide interstate 
     or intrastate air transportation.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--Section 41714(c) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Slots for New Entrants.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``If the'' and inserting ``Slots for New 
     Entrants.--If the''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (f) Amendments Reflecting Phaseout of Slot Rule for Certain 
     Airports.--Effective January 1, 2007, section 41714 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), 
     (h), and (i);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (j) as subsections 
     (a) and (b), respectively;
       (3) in the heading for subsection (a) (as so redesignated) 
     by striking ``Special Rules for''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Nonhub airport.--The term `nonhub airport' means an 
     airport that each year has less than .05 percent of the total 
     annual boardings in the United States.
       ``(2) Regional jet aircraft.--The term `regional jet 
     aircraft' means a 2-engine jet aircraft with a design 
     capacity of 70 or fewer seats, manufactured after January 1, 
     1992, that has an effective perceived noise level on takeoff 
     not exceeding 83 decibels when measured according to the 
     procedures described in part 36 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(3) Slot.--The term `slot' means a reservation for an 
     instrument flight rule takeoff or landing by an air carrier 
     or an aircraft in air transportation.''.
       ``(4) Slot rule.--The term `slot rule' means the 
     requirements of subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (pertaining to slots at high density 
     airports).
       ``(5) Small hub airport.--The term `small hub airport' 
     means an airport that each year has at least .05 percent, but 
     less than .25 percent, of the total annual boardings in the 
     United States.
       ``(6) Unreasonably high airfare.--The term `unreasonably 
     high airfare', as used with respect to an airport, means that 
     the airfare listed in the table entitled `Top 1,000 City-Pair 
     Market Summarized by City', contained in the Domestic Airline 
     Fares Consumer Report of the Department of Transportation, 
     for one or more markets for which the airport is a part of 
     has an average yield listed in such table that is more than 
     19 cents.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of 
my time for the purpose of control to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment largely, with various 
technical corrections and noncontroversial. The most significant change 
is the abolition of the slot rules have been delayed to accommodate 
concerns of Members whose districts would be impacted by aircraft 
noise.
  In New York, for example, the slot restrictions will be lifted in 
2007. In the meantime, airlines may use regional jets without any slot 
limitations as long as they are flying to small hubs or nonhubs.
  At Chicago, the slot restrictions will be lifted in 2002. In the 
meantime, exceptions from the slot rules are provided for regional 
jets, service to underserved communities, international service, and 
flights in the morning.
  There are a variety of other changes, and I will summarize the most 
significant ones. It authorizes the FAA to hire additional inspectors 
for air cargo security. It authorizes funding out of the Trust Fund to 
pay for the aviation activities of the Department's Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics. This is very important: It broadens the 
eligibility for noise mitigation projects. We recognize the importance 
of noise mitigation, and we broaden that eligibility.
  It increases the number of military airports eligible to receive 
grants under the Military Airport Program from 12 to 15. It makes the 
construction of intermodal connections eligible for grants under the 
Airport Improvement Program, another very important change.
  It increases the number of States eligible to participate in the 
State block grant program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to clarify that, without 
objection, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) may control the 
time otherwise reserved for opposition, which would amount to 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.
  The manager's amendment deserves our full support. It clarifies 
various items and addresses issues in fuller fashion on aviation 
safety, security, capacity and competition than the basic bill did, and 
adds a few items that I think are of significant importance.
  We must ensure that firefighting/rescue efforts are sufficient at 
Nation's airports. The manager's amendment requires FAA to review its 
regulations to ensure that they are adequate, for airports to have the 
appropriate firefighting equipment depending on the size of the 
airport.
  In addition, we call upon the administrator to form a partnership 
with industry to improve the curriculum, the teaching methods and 
quality of persons charged with training our Nation's aviation 
mechanics.
  We are facing a huge shortfall of qualified airframe and power plant 
mechanics in the near future to address the maintenance of our Nation's 
aircraft fleet.
  The role of aircraft dispatchers should not be minimized. The FAA is 
directed here to review the role of dispatchers in enhancing aviation 
safety and determine whether those operations not using airline 
dispatchers now should be required to do so in the future.
  We also address the issue of competition with our amendments to 
changes in the high density rule. These and other important provisions 
make the manager's amendment necessary and an improvement to the bill 
and deserve our support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly touch on some things 
that the manager's amendment does.
  We have attempted to clarify that if the Aviation Trust Fund is moved 
off budget, it is removed from the discretionary budget caps.
  We have had added a provision clarifying language for the use of 
noise standards in the national parks overflights bill. This has been a 
very contentious issue, and I am glad we have been able to reach a 
compromise on this.

[[Page 12883]]

  We have adjusted the slot restriction provisions to allow for 
regional jet exemptions early with a total phase-out for 2002 for 
Chicago and 2007 in New York. This will ensure that smaller airlines 
will have the opportunity to compete with larger airlines and open up 
flights to many underserved areas.
  We have included the provision for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) that would allow AIP funds to be spent for noise mitigation 
if more than 50 percent of the noise is caused by military aircraft. 
Currently the FAA does not allow AIP funds to be spent for noise 
mitigation if more than 50 percent of the noise is caused by military 
aircraft.
  In addition, we have required that FAA notify Congress if it fails to 
meet its rulemaking deadlines. This is good public policy and will 
allow us to monitor the Agency's adherence to its stated goals.
  We have also added the provision allowing for the banning of a 
passenger from flying if the Secretary determines that a ban is in 
order. Unruly passengers have become a significant issue on flights, 
and this provision gives the Transportation Department the ability to 
deal effectively with the issue.
  We have increased the State Block Grant Program from 9 to 10 States 
on a request from the Utah delegation.
  We have required that the National Academy of Sciences undertake a 
study on AWOS and the reliability of it when no human oversight is 
used. This is at the request of Mr. Thompson.
  We have also requested that the FAA implement a mechanic training 
program at the request of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). 
This will ensure proper training for aircraft mechanics.
  Finally, we have added a provision to direct the FAA to consider 
revisions to its regulations regarding airport fire and safety needs. 
This will ensure that airport safety needs are evaluated and updated if 
necessary.
  In short, this amendment makes changes to the bill to try and meet 
some of the concerns people have voiced, and it grants many requests 
from Members.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this manager's amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I support the 
manager's amendment totally and completely. I am very delighted that 
the Speaker of the House, my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Speaker Hastert), is going to support this bill. Of course, 
also my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
the Democratic leader of the House is going to support this bill.
  I also want to make mention of the fact that I think that the staff 
have done an outstanding job on both sides of the aisle in regards to 
this bill. There has been a lot of changes, a lot of improvements. A 
tremendous amount of work has been done by Jack Schenendorf, Dave 
Schaffer, Paul Feldman, and all of the members of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation and all of the members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. I salute them all, and I thank them all.
  Once again, I say I strongly support this manager's amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment and in strong support of H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment 
and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) 
for their work on this outstanding bill.
  The Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is a 
comprehensive reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration 
and the Airport Improvement Program. It seeks to address many of the 
problems plaguing our aviation system by making our airports and skies 
safer, by injecting competition into the airline industry, and by 
ensuring that the investment taxpayers have made in the Aviation Trust 
Fund is returned in the form of affordable, safe air travel.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's aviation system, while once the envy of 
the world, is now beginning to show age. While we are seeing a dramatic 
increase in the number of air travelers taking to the skies, airport 
infrastructure and air traffic control modernization programs are 
currently being drastically underfunded.
  But once again, Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and others for their leadership and their accommodation 
to the New York delegation in the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesoata (Mr. Oberstar) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York for the 
statement just made and for the strong support of the New York City 
delegation for this legislation. I believe we have accommodated their 
concerns in this legislation and appreciate their strong support for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 106-185.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
       In section 103 of the bill, strike subsection (b) and 
     redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly.
       Strike titles IX and X of the bill and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
15 minutes of my time for purposes of control to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On the amendment itself, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is 
supportive of the bill. We do support the bill, but we do not support 
section 103(b) of the bill, and the reason is very simple. We spent 
nearly 2 weeks here in this House trying to find ways to save $10 
million here and $100 million there. And after 2 weeks, in order to 
stay within the budget cap set in 1997, we finally saved $150 million, 
in round figures. We have about $16 billion more to go to get to where 
we have to be to appropriate within the budget cap.
  Now, what this amendment that I offer for myself and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would do is to try to help us stay within that 
budget cap, because otherwise we are going to bust the budget. We are 
going to make it $3 billion a year more difficult to stay within that 
1997 budget cap if we allow this bill to go with section 103(b) still 
in the bill. There is a penalty clause in the language relative to the 
aviation bill that if they would eliminate that they could solve this 
problem that the committee is trying to solve today with section 103(b) 
of the bill.
  We have got to maintain fiscal discipline in this House. What we are

[[Page 12884]]

going to see happen is, and we have all heard the talk about spending 
over the budget cap is going to take from Social Security, well, I want 
my colleagues to remember that; or spending over the budget cap is 
going to make it impossible to do a realistic tax cut. We need to 
remember that, because those same arguments will apply here with this 
budget-busting bill as long as it includes section 103(b) of the bill.
  All this amendment does is take out that one section. It leaves 
everything else. We agree with most everything that was said here on 
the floor today. We are just trying to maintain the fiscal discipline 
that this House has insisted that we maintain and stay within the 
budget cap set in 1997 and allow this House to go forward with the 
appropriations bills that we must conclude before the end of this 
fiscal year.
  As my colleagues have observed, Mr. Chairman, we have had great 
difficulty in getting spending bills through this House without 
bringing the spending amounts down to the amount that would be provided 
for in the budget cap. So I would hope that the House would support 
this amendment so that we could all support the bill. Because the items 
that were discussed are important. Airport safety is important. A lot 
of work needs to be done. But there should be a lot of work done on the 
fiscal responsibility of this agency. Their own Inspector General has 
suggested there was a tremendous amount of mismanagement and waste of 
the dollars put into this fund.
  I would just like to make one further point before yielding. My 
friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), made the comment he 
supported this bill. But the gentleman from Alaska has a follow-on bill 
that he has introduced that would take the funds for interior projects, 
land acquisition projects, and move them off budget into a trust fund. 
Once this process begins to start, the Members of this House lose 
control over the budget process. The Constitution provides that the 
House shall have control of the budget process. Moving money from the 
discretionary accounts to the mandatory accounts destroys the ability 
of this House to stay within the budget caps and to maintain control 
over the budget process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a bit puzzled, because my good friend from 
Florida, and he is my good friend, says that they really support the 
bill, it is just this provision that they want to knock out. Well, if 
we knock this provision out, there ain't no beef left in the hamburger. 
There is nothing there.
  This is a killer amendment. This is an amendment that drives a stake 
into the heart of this legislation. In fact, there is no reason, should 
this amendment pass, for us to continue with the legislation. I shall 
pull the bill because there will not be anything here. There will not 
be any beef in order to improve our aviation system in America.
  Further, my good friend talks about the budget problems. There is 
absolutely nothing in this legislation that affects fiscal year 2000. 
There is nothing at all, zero, zip, that affects the year 2000. We go 
out into fiscal 2001 and on out into the future. And why? Because we do 
not want to dip in to the Social Security surplus. We do not dip into 
the Social Security surplus. We only take this money from the tax cut, 
the $778 billion tax cut.
  We are told that it is going to be quite a robbery of that $778 tax 
cut. Well, it is $14.3 billion of $778 million. My arithmetic tells me 
that is 1.8 percent of the tax cut. And it is only the money that is 
being paid by the aviation ticket taxes by the people that fly on our 
airplanes. To take that ticket tax and use it for a general tax cut is 
morally wrong. If we do not need the money, then we ought to reduce the 
ticket tax.
  Even my good friend says that we have needs out there and we should 
address the needs. Well, we cannot have it both ways. Where is the 
money going to come from? It has to come from the Aviation Trust Fund. 
And, indeed, this amendment also, and get this, this amendment not only 
kills our effort with the Aviation Trust Fund, it also zeros out the 
general fund expenditure. So this amendment not only does not take us 
back to status quo, it takes us back below status quo. It means there 
will be less money available for aviation than there is today. The 
inadequate amount we spend today will be cut even further if this 
amendment were to pass.
  We are told we need discipline. All the discipline is there and it 
continues. And as I said in my previous statement, one big difference 
between this legislation and TEA-21 last year, in TEA-21 we did mandate 
that the money be spent. We do not do that here.
  The Committee on Appropriations has every bit the jurisdiction that 
they have today. They have the ability to put in obligation ceilings. 
They have the ability to reduce the expenditures. And so there is 
discipline. They have every bit as much discipline as they have today. 
What they do not have is the ability to take Aviation Trust Fund money 
and use it for other purposes.
  Now, we have heard about the FAA mismanagement. There are problems at 
the FAA. That is the reason we have reform in this legislation. We 
provide for an oversight board for the FAA. But beyond that, it is the 
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure which has oversight jurisdiction over the FAA, and that 
oversight jurisdiction is unchanged. The Committee on Appropriations 
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will continue to 
have precisely the same oversight over the FAA. So nothing changes 
there.
  For all these reasons, this amendment should be defeated. Because if 
it is not defeated, then we will not address the issues facing our 
aviation system. Indeed, when the Speaker of the House makes the 
extraordinary decision to come to this chamber and vote in favor of the 
legislation, and the distinguished Democratic leader likewise does the 
same, this gutting amendment will eliminate the opportunity for them to 
cast their vote for this legislation, which they do support. Therefore, 
this amendment should be overwhelmingly defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Young amendment and urge Members 
to vote for it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is wrong. 
This amendment does not take the beef out of the burger, this takes the 
pork out of the pork barrel. That is what we are trying to do.
  I strongly support airport modernization. My record here over the 
past 30 years shows that. But I oppose this bill because of two aspects 
of the Shuster bill. First of all, at a time of huge budget crunches, 
this bill takes airport spending off budget. The result is that there 
will be at least $23 billion in extra spending above the amount 
originally planned in the budget. That money comes out of the surplus. 
And in my view it is wrong to take it out of the surplus before we 
consider all other competing needs, including Social Security, cancer 
research, veterans' health care, and a host of other items.
  Secondly, even with the manager's amendment, this bill still provides 
$12 to $16 billion less room for other high-priority programs, such as 
education and health and veterans, and that is wrong. Airport safety is 
a high priority, but I do not see why we ought to insulate them from 
cuts and yet, in the process, force even deeper cuts in other programs.

[[Page 12885]]

  Under the budget we have already adopted, this next year alone we 
will be requiring about a 19 percent across-the-board cut in all of the 
programs funded under the Labor, Health, Education bill. That means a 
$3 billion cut in National Institutes of Health; it means denying 2.5 
million children access to title I; it means cutting Pell Grants by 
$300; it means cutting a million families out of LIHEAP; it means 
cutting veterans' health care benefits by 8 percent. Why should we make 
those cuts even deeper in order to make sure that airports wind up as 
the number one funding priority of the government? It makes no sense.
  I want to make one other point. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) complains about the trust funds not being supported. That is 
absolutely not true. The trust funds guarantee airports a source of 
revenue. The trust funds were never meant to guarantee exemptions from 
a spending squeeze for anybody. And if my colleagues doubt that, they 
should read the GAO study, which makes clear two things:
  Number one, it makes clear there is no reason why operating expenses 
should not be funded out of the trust fund; and, secondly, it makes 
quite clear that these funds were never intended to be exempted from 
the regular appropriations process. Read Senator Norris Cotton's 
statements during the debate on the bill if anyone should have any 
doubt about that.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania said that the Committee on 
Appropriations would continue to have regular oversight. That is 
nonsense. In fact, what the Shuster bill does is remove any incentive 
for the Committee on Appropriations to apply any fiscal discipline 
whatsoever to the airport account because it requires that every dollar 
that is cut out of operating expenses be transferred into the AIP 
account. That is oversight without an ability to control funds. That is 
meaningless oversight.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to have any Member come to the Committee 
on Appropriations and squawk again about an appropriations bill being 
over the limit in the budget if they support the Shuster bill. That 
would be the height of inconsistency. If Members believe in treating 
programs the same, they ought not vote for this.

                              {time}  1500

  If my colleagues think airports are more important than cancer 
research, if they think airports are more important than veterans' 
health care, then by all means, vote for the bill. I do not think that 
is true, which is why I support the Young amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Those of the American public who may be watching this debate must be 
scratching their heads in astonishment and wonderment, because what 
they are seeing here is the epitome of inside-the-institution debate. 
``What are they talking about?'' people must be saying to themselves. 
Because the average American citizen who boards an airplane knows one 
thing, they paid a special tax to arrive safely, to take off on time. 
And we are not using that tax for that purpose to the extent that the 
tax generate the revenue.
  Here is the deal: In 1972, the Congress said to the American air 
traveling public, you pay a special tax debt dedicated to aviation and 
we, the Congress, will see that we improve aviation so that you can 
travel safely, secure, and get there on time. And then we came along 
for years and said, excuse me, but not all of that money, some that we 
are going to hold it back, and we held back another $6 billion not 
being spent for aviation purposes.
  I take sharp objection to the characterization of this bill as pork. 
There are no individual projects designated for anyplace in America on 
this bill, unlike appropriations bills that come out with a little drab 
here and a little drab there.
  The Committee on Appropriations will continue to have under the 
manager's amendment and under the law that will result all the 
authority they need to continue to impose obligation limits. That means 
withhold spending or not spend any at all if they choose. This is 
nonsense.
  The argument that the Air 21 is going to hurt Social Security, 
baloney. The increased funding out of the tax that we reserve for 
aviation purposes will not touch the $700-billion surplus generated by 
Social Security over the next 5 years. Both the Congressional Budget 
Resolution and the President's budget spend a part of the surplus not 
generated by Social Security. Those both do.
  Air 21 will spend $14 billion of the taxes we generate for aviation 
purposes. Do my colleagues not want to keep faith with the traveling 
public? There is not a member in this body who does not want his or her 
airport improved, better air traffic control systems, wind shear 
detection, microburst detection systems, runway improvements, air 
traffic control towers.
  How do we do that? With that dedicated tax. Let us not continue to 
withhold it when we have a $90 billion surplus on the backs of aviation 
travelers in the next 10 years if we do not pass this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether the airport tax should be used 
for other purposes. It will not be, and it should not be. It is an 
issue of whether the general fund should continue to subsidize the 
airport trust fund, and it is an issue of whether or not airport 
spending should come before cancer research, before veterans' health 
care, before education, before any other priority in Government.
  Obviously, it should not. And that is why we support the Young 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong support of the 
Young-Kasich amendment.
  Discipline must be maintained in the appropriations process. Now, it 
is fashionable today to say that Government should be more responsible, 
but hard choices have to be made to turn this cliche into a reality. 
Today we have an opportunity to work toward that ultimate goal.
  Taking the Aviation Trust Fund off budget in this way is 
irresponsible. My colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot say 
that they want to take the trust fund and spend it on aviation and, oh, 
by the way, we also want to keep all the general revenue, too. That is 
not fair. It is not fair to the appropriations process. It is not fair 
to the budgeting process. It is not fair to the American taxpayer.
  Now, I am all for raising revenues from aviation facilities and from 
passengers and other ways to pay for aviation infrastructure. I am all 
for that. But I am not for doing it both ways. Because if they are one 
of those that want to take it off a trust fund, they ought to live 
within the budgetary restraints of that trust fund and not dip into the 
general fund paid by general tax and general taxpayers and have it both 
ways.
  Now, I appreciate the importance of infrastructure. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Minnesota have done an 
incredible job in building the infrastructure of this country over the 
years, and I appreciate what they are doing. I just disagree with them 
on this in this respect. I served on the Committee on Public Works and 
remain an avid supporter of infrastructure programs that keep the 
foundations of our Nation strong. But this bill and this issue goes too 
far and my colleagues have overstepped their bounds and they have 
stepped way too far out.
  It does bust the spending caps, it does jeopardize Social Security in 
the way that it is written; and, in the long-term, it imperils tax 
cuts. And I say to my friend on my side of the aisle, if he wants tax 
cuts, he cannot vote against the Young-Kasich amendment because this 
does dip in our ability to allow our families to hold on to more of 
their hard-earned money. And absolutely none of the spending in this 
bill is offset.

[[Page 12886]]

  We must shut this door today, and we must slam it shut for good.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
comments. I know he speaks for himself here today, he does not speak 
for the Republican Conference. Because the agreement was made that this 
would not be whip, that there would not be a Republican position on 
this issue. And so, I certainly respect his right to speak his own 
views and I salute him for doing that. But I also thank him very much 
for giving me the opportunity to emphasize that he is not speaking the 
Republican position.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, now, I know there are a lot of people in 
our offices watching this debate and they are hearing all this talk 
about the budget process and they do not have a clue what we are 
talking about. Let me put it to my colleagues in the simplest terms, as 
I understand it, and what my position is on this.
  First of all, if my colleagues want to be in a position where they 
spend all of the trust fund money that gets collected, there is no 
disagreement on that. I do not know one person on this floor who says 
that we ought to raid that trust fund. And we would not raid that trust 
fund. We could put fire walls around that trust fund so all the money 
collected to improve the airports in America ought to be spent.
  Now, it has been the tradition of the Congress to not only spend all 
the trust fund money but also to spend the general fund money. Well, 
that ought to be a decision that we make when we debate our priorities. 
We ought not to say not only are we going to spend all the trust fund 
money, but at the same time we are going to make sure that we spend 
general fund money. Because once we make that decision to make this the 
highest priority, then we have let go of our ability to establish 
priorities bill by bill.
  And the fact is that if my colleagues are interested at all in giving 
mothers and fathers a little bit more money in their pocket, I mean if 
there is ever a time when people could understand the moral nature of 
tax cuts, when we look at the troubles that families are in in America 
today, if there is any sweeping thing the Federal Government can 
finally do is to let people have more money in their pocket, we ought 
to have that debate.
  So, in my judgment, we must reject this amendment because it not only 
says we will spend all the money in the trust fund, but it also carves 
out a chunk of money out of the general fund that makes aviation the 
number one priority over tax cuts and over education or over health 
care research or over anything else.
  So I would urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. And when we 
vote to accept this amendment, they are saying, we will not raid the 
trust fund and at the same time we are saying that we will decide on a 
case-by-case basis whether transportation ought to be funded 
additionally out of the general fund at the expense of the National 
Institutes of Health or out of the expense of tax cuts. It seems pretty 
simple.
  So, in my judgment, if my colleagues are worried about going home and 
saying, we are not raiding the trust fund, they can have it, without 
further implications that in fact they can get at least the Republican 
party and those who are interested in letting mothers and fathers have 
more in their pocket, they can really have it both ways in this case.
  So I would urge my colleagues to accept the Young-Archer-Kasich 
amendment, and I think they will be casting a vote that is in the best 
interests of their district if they have airports and if in fact they 
have families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 12 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, before I make my brief comments, I would like to engage 
the chairman in a brief colloquy and ask the chairman simply this: Our 
good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) said that if this bill 
passes, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no money left for tax cuts. 
And my understanding is that there would still be over $700 billion 
left for tax cuts over the next 10 years or so.
  What are the correct figures on that?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the 
gentleman is absolutely correct. The tax cut is $778 billion. We are 
talking about $14.3 billion of that, which is only the aviation ticket 
tax money paid in there, which leaves $764 billion for the tax cut. So 
the aviation ticket tax portion of that is 1.8 percent. So there will 
still be 98.2 percent.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is a very 
important point. And I am glad the chairman has made it that, even if 
this bill passes without this amendment, there would still be over $700 
billion remaining for the tax cuts that many Members of our conference 
want.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment 
really guts this bill and would not allow us even to keep the status 
quo, and would certainly not allow us to meet the needs that the 
expanded use of our aviation system is demanding.
  The FAA has many national defense functions. In addition to national 
defense, the FAA also provides general government services, such as 
safety regulation certification, and inspection. As I mentioned earlier 
today, everyone benefits from a good aviation system, even people who 
do not fly but who use goods that are transported on planes, and people 
who want our economy to grow and prosper and remain strong.
  There is no reason why aviation users should pay for these items that 
benefit our country as a whole. The general fund must continue to 
contribute to the FAA's budget in order to pay for these very important 
functions.
  Furthermore, this amendment would continue the practice of using the 
Aviation Trust Fund to mask the Federal deficit or inflate the on-
budget surplus. If this amendment passes, the amount of funding 
available for airport improvements would be drastically reduced, 
possibly by as much as 55 percent. The airline passengers, shippers, 
and general aviation pilots are now paying about $10 billion per year 
into the Aviation Trust Fund, with no assurance that the money could be 
spent under current budget rules.
  This chart shows that if historic trends continue, the balance in the 
trust fund will skyrocket to over $90 billion by the year 2009. Since 
small and medium-size communities rely most heavily on the Federal 
program for airport funding, they will bear the brunt of the cuts that 
would be imposed by this amendment.
  Our constituents in these areas, in these small and medium-size 
areas, continue to experience the highest fares and the most diminished 
air service. Without the additional funding available through AIR 21, 
small airports will not be able to build the capacity needed to 
accommodate more air carriers and improve air service.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  According to a study by GAO, as much as 30% of the country is worse 
off today than before deregulation.
  This will get worse, not better, if we do not move the Aviation Trust 
Fund off-budget.
  If you believe that the Trust Fund should be unlocked so that 
aviation taxes are spent for aviation purposes--so that the trust fund 
is truly a trust fund--and to help your local communities, vote ``No'' 
on this amendment.
  This bill does not touch any other program--it simply means aviation 
money is spent for aviation purposes.

[[Page 12887]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, at some point I think public works has come 
up with a clever idea on how we solve our budget problem. We simply 
declare everything off budget, and then say that all restraints do not 
count, and we simply make some additions which are paid for by a 
reduction in an unpassed tax bill. It is basically what we are doing in 
this bill. It makes no sense.
  Let us be clear about one thing. There is a surplus in the Airport 
Trust Fund today for one simple reason. We put over $55 billion of 
General Revenue Fund into the Airport Trust Fund over the years, taxes 
paid by people who do not travel the airlines, to subsidize the 
operations and the construction of airports. Maybe that is appropriate, 
but if it is, it should be decided within the context of overall budget 
discussion.
  We have differing views on what should happen with the future of our 
budget caps. I happen to think they should be raised. Others do not 
think so. Some put more priority on some types of tax cuts, different 
size of tax cuts. But those issues have been debated and argued in 
totality. What we do in this bill is say that we are going to continue 
the raid of general revenue for airports and that building airports and 
the operations of the FAA is more important than anything else that we 
do. It is more important than housing, which is in a crisis in our 
State, it is more important that education, it is more important than 
veterans' health care, it is more important than whatever we do to deal 
with our educational problems in this country or whatever else my 
colleagues think is important, dealing with our agricultural crisis.
  This bill says we are going to remove aviation, give them increased 
spending authority, totally out of context, to deal with what happens, 
be the priorities, of one particular industry, one particular group in 
our society and ignore the needs of the rest.
  We should adopt the Young amendment, and if it is not adopted, we 
should defeat the bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, the question really is are we going to 
spend all the money out of the Aviation Trust Fund on aviation. If my 
colleagues think that it should be spent on aviation, as it was 
intended to be spent, then they should vote against this amendment.
  Right now we have a $9 billion surplus in the Aviation Trust Fund. As 
was mentioned earlier, if we do not defeat this amendment, it is going 
to grow to $90 billion over the course of 10 years, money the American 
people have paid into the trust fund for aviation safety, capacity, 
overall improvement, overall development.
  Now the other part of the question is is there going to be a 
contribution from the General Revenue Fund? Now, there should be a 
contribution from the General Revenue Fund because someone has to pay 
for the military and their use of the aviation system; governments, for 
their use of the aviation system; and for years 39 percent of the 
budget for aviation came out of the General Revenue Fund. It has been 
cut down recently to 32 percent. With our AIR 21 bill, it is going to 
be cut down to 23 percent.
  So, if my colleagues believe that the military, government have an 
obligation to aviation, 23 percent of the overall bill that we are 
passing, should be a reasonable amount to come out of the General 
Revenue Fund, and if my colleagues believe like so many of them say, 
that they believe all money should be spent out of the Aviation Trust 
Fund, that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund for aviation, they should 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I oppose this amendment and believe 
in fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment 
that will strike the general fund payment as well as the off-budget 
provisions from AIR 21. By unlocking the aviation trust fund and 
maintaining the general fund payment at the 1998 level, AIR 21 is able 
to significantly increase funding for aviation infrastructure needs 
without squeezing out funding for other federal programs. This will not 
be the case if this amendment passes.
  Every American, whether he or she knows it or not, benefits from our 
national aviation system. The safe and efficient operation of a strong 
national aviation system allows our national economy to grow and 
thrive. As a result, the general fund contribution to aviation is more 
than justified. The general fund payment is used to fund a variety of 
FAA services that benefit society as a whole, such as safety regulation 
and certification and security activities to protect against terrorist 
attacks on U.S. aircraft. The general fund payment also reimburses the 
FAA for services it provides to military and other government aircraft 
that do not pay aviation taxes but still use the system.
  There is no good reason to eliminate the general fund contribution to 
aviation. This is especially true under AIR 21 since the bill freezes 
the general fund contribution at 1998 levels, which results in a 23 
percent average general fund share for the FAA. This is down from 
historic levels of 39 percent and recent levels of 32 percent.
  The infrastructure needs of our national aviation system are 
tremendous. More and more people are flying each day but our aging air 
traffic control system and aging airports can hardly keep up with 
demand. Increased funding is needed today to make sure that our 
aviation system can handle increased demands tomorrow and in the 
future. The supporters of this amendment recognize this need for 
increased funding because they leave AIR 21 funding levels intact.
  However, because this amendment does not take the aviation trust fund 
off-budget, the needed increases in aviation spending will squeeze out 
other discretionary federal programs under this amendment. The only way 
not to squeeze out other discretionary spending under this amendment 
would be to underfund aviation programs. This is clearly unacceptable 
and this is why we need AIR 21 as it is--with a modest general fund 
payment and off-budget provisions that will allow aviation taxes to be 
spent on aviation infrastructure needs but will not negatively affect 
other federal discretionary programs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the very able and distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for what clearly is a very 
good bill. The substantial increases in funding will create new 
terminals, gates and other airport infrastructure. This, in turn, 
allows additional air carriers to serve more fliers and more airports 
which increases competition and efficiency at our nation's airports.
  What we have before us at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is a measure to 
make this a great bill, and it is, as it is currently written, H.R. 
1000 does two things that I believe are fiscally unsound.
  First, the bill takes the Aviation Trust Fund off budget which 
reduces accountability; second, the mandate that $3.3 billion from the 
general fund be spent on aviation programs every year means less tax 
relief for American families. This amendment will keep the Aviation 
Trust Fund on budget and allow Congress to make responsible annual 
decisions about FAA spending.
  This debate is about the allocation and control of federal spending 
and about whether it makes sense to let the FAA run on automatic pilot. 
The bill spends $39 billion over the next 5 years, which is 14 billion 
above the baseline. By taking the Aviation Trust Fund off budget, 
Congress has no incentive to monitor how all that money will be spent.
  I want to make sure the FAA is brought into the 21st century so that 
Americans continue to have the safest aviation system in the world. 
This amendment will allow this to happen while boosting economic growth 
through responsible tax relief. In our budget resolution we promised 
the American people tax relief that would not undermine the Social 
Security Trust Fund. We voted to save Social Security, provide tax 
relief, restore our defense capabilities and expand educational 
opportunities. Without adoption of this amendment, it would put 
aviation programs above all those priorities.

[[Page 12888]]

  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, if it passes, the authorized funding 
levels in H.R. 1000 will not change. On an annual basis we will be able 
to provide the level of funds necessary to ensure airline safety while 
staying within the parameters of our budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Young-Kasich 
amendment. This amendment would ensure a continuation of the 
unsatisfactory status quo in which the taxes contributed by aviation 
users are not spent to improve our Nation's airports and air traffic 
control system.
  Mr. Chairman, AIR 21 seeks to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund and 
ensure that the investments necessary to keep our transportation system 
safe and efficient are made in a fiscally responsible manner without 
adversely affecting other discretionary programs or Social Security. 
Some supporters of this amendment would have us believe that AIR 21 
will take funding away from Social Security. This is just not true. All 
of AIR 21's funding increases come from funds available outside of the 
Social Security part of our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, based on the safety needs of our Nation's system, 
aviation system, the job opportunities which will be created and the 
fair and equitable treatment of budget issues in this bill. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to vote against the Kasich-Young amendment and 
permit our aviation taxes to be used to improve our Nation's airports 
and air traffic control system.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote against this amendment is a vote for air traffic 
safety.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, enplanements, people getting on to airplanes, rose from 
514 million to 642 million passengers per year. That is an increase of 
128 million people a year, 25 percent. Total Aviation Trust Fund income 
in 1992 was $5.9 billion, and it rose to 8.7 billion in 1998. That is 
an increase of over 31 percent.
  Did the money go into airport infrastructure improvements? No. The 
Aviation Trust Fund expenditures in 1992 were 6.637 billion, and in 
1998 they were 5.7 billion. That is a decrease of 14 percent.
  Now in 1998 the FAA experienced 101 significant system outages, and 
one of them lasted for more than 5 days. I would only suggest to my 
colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the 642 million people who found 
themselves in the air in 1998 had no higher priority than taking the 
Aviation Trust Fund off budget.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I am very reluctant in standing here to speak for this 
amendment and, in effect, against the bill.
  Our budgetary concept is a flawed one, but we have to live with it, 
and in order to protect our twin promise for meaningful tax relief and 
preservation of the Social Security surplus I rise in support of the 
Young-Kasich amendment.
  Only 2 months ago we agreed that Americans were overtaxed at the 
highest peace-time tax take in history, and they need relief, and we 
approved a budget resolution instructing the Committee on Ways and 
Means to provide over the next 5 years $142 billion of net tax relief 
to hard-working Americans. According to the CBO, the bill before us in 
its current form would reduce projected surpluses over the same period 
of time by nearly $43 billion, leaving us with roughly a hundred 
billion only in tax relief over the next five years.
  Colleagues will hear today differing estimates on the impact of H.R. 
1000 on the budget surpluses, but they need to know that those 
estimates are based on the assumption that the administration will 
lower the spending caps next year. Now I will let my colleagues be a 
judge of that. We are having tremendous difficulty keeping the spending 
caps this year, and they are already scheduled to go lower next year 
under current law. This assumes they will go even lower. That just will 
not happen.
  More troubling is that this bill could eliminate entirely any net tax 
relief for the year 2001 and force us to renege on our promise for 
early tax reduction at just about the same time voters head for the 
election booth next year.
  I believe it is imperative that our country have a modern 
infrastructure and safe and efficient FAA operations. I also agree with 
the principle that trust fund dollars should be spent for their stated 
purpose, and a vote for the Young-Kasich amendment does not compromise 
those goals.
  The choice is simple. Colleagues can vote for more government 
spending, or they can vote to preserve tax relief for retirement, 
health security, strengthening families and sustaining a strong 
economy.
  I urge the House to vote for the Young-Kasich amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the FAA estimates that passenger use of 
aviation infrastructure will increase by 43 percent over the next 10 
years. Let me submit to my colleagues this is a public safety issue. We 
cannot safely increase passenger enplanements by 43 percent without 
making significant new investments in aviation infrastructure.
  It is that simple. This bill begins to make the appropriate level of 
investment in our aviation infrastructure to make it safe.
  Let me point out that the adoption of the Kasich amendment would 
place a critical environmental provision in jeopardy. We cannot afford 
to shortchange our investment in improving air quality, and this 
legislation includes provisions that will for the first time provide 
resources specifically to deal with the purchase of low emission 
vehicles at airports and air quality nonattainment areas.

                              {time}  1530

  Think how important that is.
  The 10-airport, $20 million program will promote the expanded use of 
natural gas and electric vehicles at our Nation's airports, and I 
submit that is good public policy. I applaud the author, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if we had no trust fund, we would still 
finance FAA through the general fund. More people flying, more 
exposure, more risk. The appropriators with this bill still have the 
control. One of the great chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), would still have that control, and our appropriators.
  The Social Security Trust Fund should be used for Social Security. 
The Highway Trust Fund should be used for highways. The Aviation Trust 
Fund should be used for aviation. If you want to cut taxes and throw 
that in the equation, cut taxes.
  We have been using trust funds to deceive the true budget and deficit 
picture in this country for too long. This is a dedicated tax. It 
should be used for aviation. We should pass it today, this bill, and 
oppose this amendment. This amendment is very similar to the gutting 
bill in the highway transportation package. We were able to defeat it 
then; we should defeat it today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Young 
amendment. I cannot believe that this Congress, let me put my words to 
this side, is ready to do what they may be going to do. There are 144 
trust funds. We are not going to do anything for cancer research. We 
are not going to do anything for juvenile diabetes. We are not

[[Page 12889]]

going to do anything for Alzheimer's disease.
  Read the Concord Coalition letter. They say this bill is an assault 
on fiscal discipline. Spending is spending. It is this kind of 
spending, it is that kind of spending. Spending is spending. My 
colleagues are going after Medicare, they are going after Social 
Security, they are going after cancer research, and they are going 
after, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said, the tax cut.
  For the integrity of our party, we have worked hard to bring about a 
balanced budget. Let us not slip back. I strongly urge support of the 
Young-Kasich amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the breakdown of 
time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
extremely generous period of time.
  It is an interesting debate we have before us. We have heard that if 
we spend the Aviation Trust Fund, funds which are collected for the 
safety and capacity of the aviation system, we might not be able to 
give generous tax cuts.
  Well, let me put a situation to my colleagues. I fly a lot, sit next 
to people and talk a lot about safety. If you have just been caught in 
a microburst, and your plane is heading toward the ground, and you are 
crossing yourself and saying your goodbyes, you are not going to feel 
really good about that $78 tax cut burning a hole in your pocket, and 
that is because you did not have the public funds for the Doppler radar 
to make the system safe for all Americans.
  There are only some things you can do with public dollars and with 
trust funds and tax dollars, and some things individuals can do for 
themselves. Individuals are not going to get together frequent fliers 
and collect money for Doppler radar for the local airport. They are 
going to spend the money on something else. We need that safety 
investment.
  It is also ironic that we are hearing that somehow this is an attack 
on Social Security. Many of the people are standing up who just voted 
for the Social Security lockbox because it is a trust fund. Guess what? 
This is a trust fund. The money is collected for capacity and safety 
from flying Americans; it should be spent on those purposes.
  Now, the chairman of the committee said, it is not spent on anything 
else; it is true, he is right. We only underspend the money, there is 
$9 billion in the trust fund, replace it with IOUs, and then we spend 
it on something else. We are not really spending it on something else 
because we have replaced it with IOUs. We do not make the critical 
investments in capacity, we do not make the critical investments in 
safety, we jeopardize the flying public and the future of aviation in 
this country all with very shortsighted budget logic. Vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am in disagreement with 
some colleagues that oftentimes I am in agreement with, but I think, I 
really think, this amendment is the wrong way to go.
  Anyone who flies knows how inconvenient air travel is becoming, the 
tremendously long waits that people are experiencing, the crowded 
conditions one is in, the canceled flights that happen all of a sudden. 
One knows that one is having traffic control difficulty because the 
plane cannot land at the destination airport.
  All of these things are due to the tremendous increase in congestion 
at our airports. There is going to be a 10 percent annual increase in 
passenger miles from now on each year way into the future. We have to 
get ahead of the game. We have to build up our infrastructure in this 
manner. We are only asking to spend the money that is in the trust fund 
to do that. This amendment not only puts it all on budget again, but 
cuts off the general fund support for vitally needed things like the 
Doppler radar and other things. For that reason and others I would 
strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and let us move 
forward on the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us as to 
how much time each of us has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 
6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the proponents of 
this legislation who, I think, are pursuing a worthy goal, it is simply 
not true that we can afford to do this at this time. The theory says, 
trust funds should be trust funds. But in reality, we cannot afford 
this legislation. The simple fact is that we are dipping into the 
general fund for 30 percent of these monies. We are dipping into the 
general fund for $3.3 billion.
  H.R. 1000 will force Congress to break both the budget caps that we 
agreed to with the President and to spend part of the Social Security 
surplus. We simply cannot afford to do that at this time. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Young-Kasich amendment and to pass the 
legislation with that amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this legislation for all of 
the reasons that have been given, but also because of the jeopardy that 
it imposes for small, quiet, rural areas of our country, those of us 
without a screaming Dulles Airport in our backyard. The members of this 
committee who represent small communities in rural areas should take a 
good look at this bill because it contains a number of initiatives 
aimed at helping small airports.
  While a great deal of attention is often focused on the larger 
airports in big cities, the importance of airports in rural areas is 
increasing across our Nation. Indeed, these airports are more than a 
simple facility to serve the traveling public. They are becoming 
engines for economic development. Yet, since airline deregulation we 
have seen a number of serious declines in air service, while the cost 
of that service has increased. With AIR 21, we mean to do something 
about this decrease in service and increase in cost to the small 
airports and consumers across the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill makes a great deal more funding available to 
these small airports to address their infrastructure needs. I urge 
defeat of the pending amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Young/Kasich 
amendment.
  For years we have told the American tax payers that they are paying 
gas taxes to improve their roads and airport taxes to improve their 
airports. In reality, they paid gas taxes and airport taxes to pay for 
welfare programs, the military, the Department of Education and a 
variety of other programs. This is not right. TEA-21 ensured that gas 
taxes are again used for our roads. This bill today will do the same 
for our airports. If we collect a tax for a specific purpose, we should 
use it for that purpose. If we don't need the money for our airports, 
then we shouldn't collect it. If we do collect it, then it should be 
used for airports.
  I understand that my colleague Mr. Kasich is trying to be fiscally 
responsible. But I think the fiscally responsible thing to do is to be 
honest with the American people about where their money is going. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

[[Page 12890]]


  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, AIR 21 is a matter of trust with the American 
citizen. The citizen sees this trust fund as one which uses these 
excise taxes to assure aviation safety. This is the conservative way to 
fund programs. If we have to fund and make up for lost time with our 
aviation infrastructure, then we should be using every dime in that 
Aviation Trust Fund. If we are not going to keep faith with the 
American people, then close the fund and lower taxes. But do not come 
in here and say any funds in any trust fund can be utilized in any way. 
Presidents have tried to cloud their actual deficit. If we do not 
strengthen this trust fund, every Member will be after those funds. 
There will not be enough to sustain the needs for our aviation 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, if we need expansion, we should expand that aviation 
tax. We should have several trust funds. We already have one and that 
is Social Security. We locked it up. So no President can dip into that 
fund to mask his deficit. We ought to have a separate Surplus Trust 
Fund beyond the needs of Social Security. That separate Surplus Trust 
Fund is the source to fund the lowering of the taxes. That would be 
keeping the trust fund faith with the American people.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a pilot.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment. It 
has been an interesting parade here this morning of all of the powers 
that be of this Congress to talk about this issue. Quite a list has 
been recorded here of things we need to do. But not from the ticket tax 
on the aviation fund.
  Now, those of my colleagues, all of my colleagues fly, they fly a 
lot. They do not hear anybody complaining to them about that extra fee 
to fly. They want safety, they want timeliness, they want 
dependability. They want the air traffic control system to be upgraded. 
They really want things to be safe. Here is an opportunity to collect 
the funds for the purpose that it is intended for and use it for that 
purpose, and the need is great.
  Some of my colleagues can give the statistics on how fast it is 
growing, the passenger traffic and freight traffic, and the need to 
modernize and extend airports like Miami all the way to California. We 
have got to do it. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I repeat once again, the issue is not whether the trust 
fund should be spent on other purposes other than aviation; it should 
not. The question is whether or not the general fund should be required 
to subsidize the Aviation Trust Fund above and beyond the money that is 
spent out of the trust fund, even if that subsidization means 
additional reductions in cancer research, in veterans' health care, in 
diabetes research, in education, in Pell grants; and, in my view, it 
should not.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) said the AFL-CIO is for 
his bill, the NFIB is for it, and the Chamber of Commerce is for it. If 
that is true, then we have a trifecta today. All three of them are 
wrong. If we want to preserve budget discipline, if we want to preserve 
budget discipline, if we want to preserve budget balance and fairness, 
my colleagues will support the Young amendment, and they will oppose 
the Shuster amendment unless the Young amendment carries.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is 
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and rise in strong support of this amendment. This 
amendment strikes Title IX out of the bill. Title IX takes all airport 
and airway trust fund receipts and all spending off-budget.
  We use that word ``off-budget'' around here loosely. What does it 
mean? In this case, off-budget means that airport and aviation spending 
will no longer be subject to the discretionary spending caps, one of 
the most effective devices for controlling the budget we have ever 
devised around here. It will no longer be subject, it will be so 
privileged and protected that it will no longer be subject to 
sequestration if we overshoot those caps.
  It also means that when aviation spending is removed from these 
spending caps, these caps, which already are extremely tight, will have 
to be ratcheted down, screwed down, and made even tighter. The 
discretionary spending caps will have to be lowered by at least $8 
billion to $10 billion to account for what the aviation trust fund has 
been taking in every year.
  On top of that, about $3 billion, which I will explain in a minute, 
is effectively carved out of the general fund.
  We have had a hard enough time this year. We have only begun bringing 
the budget to closure under the existing caps. It is going to get even 
tighter in future years. It will be even harder if we lower these 
limits even more.
  Let me explain an additional problem. When this bill was first 
written, its authors knew if they just took the aviation trust fund 
off-budget, sure, they could gain all of the trust fund spending, but 
they would risk losing general fund spending. It would run as much as 
$3.5 billion over the last several years. To protect against that loss, 
they tried to put firewalls around their share of the general fund pie, 
equal to a little over $3 billion a year.
  But it was soon perceived what they were doing. They were trying to 
have their pie and eat it, too. So the supporters of this bill rewrote 
the bill. They now say it leaves the Appropriations free to decide just 
how much should go to the FAA every year out of general revenues.
  That argument will not stand up. This bill restricts the amount of 
the aviation trust fund that can be spent on operations of the FAA, and 
requires the general fund to make up the difference.
  Sure, the Committee on Appropriations can decide not to make up the 
difference. They can refuse to appropriate the needed funds. If they 
fail to put up the money, though, the FAA will fall short of what it 
needs to keep air traffic safe. The firewalls are, in effect, still in 
place.
  What is wrong with taking the aviation trust funds off-budget, or any 
trust fund off-budget? It sets a troubling precedent. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) just pointed to the problem. There are 144 
trust funds in the Federal budget. Supporters of these other funds are 
already lining up for off-budget treatment, too.
  Coming on the heels of this bill will be a nuclear waste bill, with 
the electric utilities pushing to go off-budget. Then the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, with the environmentalists pushing to go off-
budget. Why do they want to go off-budget? Because the budget is 
finally binding; because they want to escape these strictures. The 
budget which they have finally brought us delivered us from a world of 
deficits to a world of surpluses. They want to escape the budget, no 
secret.
  If we take this step down this slippery slope, that is exactly what 
it will be. We risk the balkanization of the Federal budget. On the 
other hand, if we have the discipline and the forbearance, if we do not 
dissipate the budget surpluses we see rising on the horizon, within the 
next 4 to 5 years there should be sufficient surpluses without social 
security and without any of the 140 trust fund surpluses to allow user 
fees and dedicated and earmarked taxes to flow through most of the 
trust funds and still adequately fund other needs out of the general 
fund.
  Every year we hear we are where we are with the budget because of the 
steps we have taken to stiffen the budget process, the pay-go rules, 
the discretionary spending limits, the sequestration rules. All of 
these things have worked. They are complex, they are arcane, but they 
have worked.
  Vote to keep them working. Vote for budget discipline. Vote for this 
bipartisan, genuinely bipartisan amendment

[[Page 12891]]

which is offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and me of the 
Committee on the Budget and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) of the Committee on 
Appropriations. This is the right way to go.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a volunteer member of the off-budget 
committee, as suggested by my distinguished friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard more red herrings in this debate this 
afternoon than I have heard in a long time on the House floor: No 
fiscal discipline, all restraints do not count.
  Baloney. The aviation tax is a restraint. We cannot get more than the 
taxes provide. The general revenue limit in this bill, that is a 
restraint. We do not allow the general revenue funds to increase. Any 
increase demanded by operations is going to come out of the ticket tax 
fund. The Committee on Appropriations has the ability to limit 
obligations. That is a restraint.
  Ignore the rest of the budget? Baloney. The same gang that cannot 
shoot straight today could not shoot straight last year. They said last 
year on T-21, oh, my God, the sky is falling if we pass this bill. We 
will not be able to do health care, we will not be able to do 
education, we will not be able to do all the other good things we want 
in this Federal budget.
  Well, we are doing them. The construction crews are out there on the 
highways building the road improvements, building the bridge 
improvements that America wants and needs, making the transit 
improvements in America's cities they need. All we want is to do the 
same thing, have the same fairness with the aviation trust fund.
  Will our good friends and colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations guarantee a commitment to spend out the revenues into 
the aviation trust fund that come in from the ticket tax every year? I 
did not hear any of that in the preceding debate. I did not hear any 
commitments to assure that the taxes and the interest thereon will be 
invested for the purpose for which air travelers are taxed. We did not 
hear any of that debate.
  We heard all this stuff about the general revenues of the United 
States, of the Federal government. Other agencies provide safety 
services to the public, including the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Food Safety Inspection Service, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, environmental protection. They get 80 percent of their 
budgets, at least, from the general fund. The FAA is going to get about 
23 percent.
  We are assuring that the taxes into the trust fund will go to cover 
the cost of general revenues.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and raising 
that point.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell the gentleman that the Committee on 
Appropriations will guarantee and does guarantee by this amendment that 
the income from that aviation tax going into the trust fund would 
remain there. The interest would remain there. We have not and would 
not attempt to use that funding for any other purpose. I want the 
gentleman to be assured of that.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming the little bit of time I have left, Mr. 
Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and would be delighted if he would 
just include firewalls. That is all that is missing from that language. 
What we need to have is real firewalls.
  Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment comes down to how does it 
affect each Member's State and each Member's airport. Here, come to 
this desk. Here is a glimpse of the future. Take a look at how the cuts 
that will result from this amendment will affect Members' airports. We 
can show them how that will affect their airport.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I think there is another question that ought to be asked: 
How will it affect the country if we blow the budget?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. It will affect the country by improving airports, 
increasing the efficiency of air travel, improving the national 
economy, keeping America the leader in the world in aviation.
  Let us vote for the 21st century. Let us vote for this bill, and vote 
down on this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that there is a 
problem in the Capitol as a result of an event that is taking place in 
the Rotunda right now, and that Members will not be, though it is a 
wonderful event taking place, Members will not be able to get here for 
the vote.
  Therefore, in consultation with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young), the two of us have agreed that I will make a motion in a few 
seconds that the committee do now rise, and it will be for about 30 
minutes, I am told.
  Then we will come back and the two remaining speakers on this 
amendment will be the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and 
myself.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that this is not the 
first time there has been a problem in the Capitol. But I agree with 
the gentleman's solution.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Wolf) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonilla, 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. 1000) to amend 
title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________