[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12891-12909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1000.

                              {time}  1656


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, pending was Amendment Number 2 printed in part B of House Report

[[Page 12892]]

106-185 by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 2 minutes remaining in 
debate, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining in debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Young-Kasich amendment.
  This amendment guarantees that aviation will get its fair share of 
the funding. Our amendment allows us to spend all of the aviation 
revenues and spend them only on authorized aviation purposes.
  Since the trust fund was created in 1970, we have appropriated all of 
the ticket tax revenues and more. And my amendment does nothing to 
undermine that policy. This is a policy that is fair to the traveling 
public.
  Our amendment deletes those parts of the bill which bust the budget 
and put FAA spending on autopilot. Without the amendment, AIR 21 makes 
already strained budget cap problems $3 billion worse each year because 
it guarantees a locked-in amount for general fund appropriations.
  Our amendment preserves the ability of this Congress to control 
aviation spending and provide real tax relief for American families. 
This amendment is endorsed by all of the leading budget watchdog 
groups, including Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord 
Coalition, and Americans for Tax Reform.
  Also, we have been advised that because of this section 103(b), the 
administration is recommending a veto on the bill.
  So I would suggest that it would be in all of our best interest and 
in the best interest of the aviation industry and the flying public and 
in the best interest of those who are committed to balancing the budget 
and preserving the surplus for Social Security and, hopefully, in the 
future for a tax break that we support this amendment and take out the 
onerous part of this bill that is a budget buster.
  I would ask that our colleagues when they come to the floor to take 
the opportunity to read the handouts that we will have to show just 
exactly how this is a budget buster and to be assured that we are not 
taking one penny away from the monies in the trust fund that have been 
paid in by the traveling public, the people who fly in airlines all 
over this great Nation of ours.
  So the concern that was expressed by my colleague the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) earlier in the debate that that would happen 
is just not the case. That is guaranteed. That is protected. That is 
there until somebody changes the basic law. This amendment does not 
change that. This amendment keeps this bill from being a budget buster.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been absolutely astonished at the misinformation 
that has been put out during the course of this debate. People are 
entitled to different opinions, but they are not entitled to different 
facts.
  Read the bill. Fact one is, this does not break the budget caps. This 
is funded outside of the budget through a tiny portion of the tax cut.
  Fact number 2, this does not touch the Social Security surplus.
  Fact number 3, this eliminates general funding.
  We hear about general funding, the use of the general fund, as though 
this were something new. This has been a part of the aviation bill from 
day one.
  Indeed, the very commission that we created indicated that it is 
proper for there to be general funding for aviation because it is in 
the public interest.

                              {time}  1700

  Fact No. 4: We actually freeze the level of general funding so there 
can be no increase in spending from the general fund, which takes 
pressure off the appropriators in the future.
  And Fact No. 5: When my colleagues come to the floor, they should 
look at what this does to their airport if this passes. Primary 
airports will lose 67 percent of their entitlements; cargo airports 
will lose two-thirds of their entitlements. General aviation airports 
will lose all of their entitlements.
  The Speaker of the House supports our legislation, the Democratic 
Leader supports our legislation. Indeed, the Speaker has said he will 
come to the floor not only supporting this legislation, but actually 
will vote in favor of our legislation.
  So defeat this killer amendment so that we can proceed to do what is 
right for America and improve America's aviation system. Mr. Chairman, 
I urge opposition to this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla.) The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 248, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               AYES--179

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.

[[Page 12893]]


     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Lewis (GA)
     Pryce (OH)

                              {time}  1727

  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, HILLEARY, WEXLER, FLETCHER, WELDON of Florida 
and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DOGGETT, CLYBURN, FOSSELLA, WATT of North Carolina, MINGE, 
HALL of Texas, GEORGE MILLER of California and SAWYER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed 
in Part B of House Report 106-185.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
       In section 105(a) of the bill, at the end of the matter 
     proposed to be added as section 40117(b)(4) of title 49, 
     United States Code, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period and insert the following:
       ``(5)(A) If a passenger facility fee is being imposed (or 
     will be imposed) at O'Hare International Airport under 
     paragraph (1) or (4), the Secretary may authorize under this 
     section the State of Illinois to impose a passenger facility 
     fee of not to exceed $1.50 on each paying passenger of an air 
     carrier or foreign air carrier boarding an aircraft at the 
     Airport to finance an eligible airport-related project, 
     including making payments for debt service on indebtedness 
     incurred to carry out the project, at an airport located (or 
     to be located) in the State if the Secretary finds that the 
     project meets the criteria described in paragraph (4)(A).
       ``(B) The maximum amount of a passenger facility fee that 
     can be imposed at O'Hare International Airport by an eligible 
     entity under paragraph (4) shall be reduced by the amount of 
     any passenger facility fee imposed at the airport by the 
     State of Illinois under this paragraph.
       ``(C) Except as otherwise determined by the Secretary, if 
     the State of Illinois submits an application to impose a 
     passenger facility fee under this paragraph, the State shall 
     be subject to the same requirements as an eligible entity 
     submitting an application to impose a passenger facility fee 
     under paragraph (1) or (4).
       ``(D) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a passenger facility 
     fee imposed under this paragraph.''.

       Strike section 105(c)(2) of the bill and insert the 
     following:

       (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 to the airport 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 to the airport 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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, although I am opposed to the amendment in 
its present form, I ask unanimous consent that the time for this 
amendment be increased from a total of 10 minutes to a total of 16 
minutes so that the gentleman will have an extra 3 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side will, under the unanimous consent agreement, 
have 3 additional minutes.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) each will control 8 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support for an amendment that I 
actually am planning on withdrawing. I am proud to offer this amendment 
with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow the Illinois Department of 
Transportation to petition for 50 percent of increased PFC revenues 
authorized by this bill that will be earned by the Chicago Airport 
Authority so that PFC funds earned in Illinois will be used in a way 
that Congress originally intended.
  The stated purpose of the Passenger Facility Act was to, and I quote, 
``Enhance safety or capacity of the national air transportation system, 
reduce noise from airports, and furnish opportunities for enhanced 
competition among or between the carriers.''
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not impose extra fees on travelers 
through Chicago. It merely allows the State of Illinois the opportunity 
to share in additional PFC revenues provided by Air 21 to help meet the 
needs of all Illinois residents and honor Congress' intent.
  Authorizing a division of funds in this way between the city and the 
State allows for balanced growth. Appropriate use of PFCs has been an 
ongoing problem since they were instituted in 1990. The city of Chicago 
collects the $3 ticket tax to the tune of about $100 million a year, 
although much of this revenue stream is not being used as Congress 
intended; that is, to increase capacity. Instead, the city uses the 
PFCs in a number of ways: Number one, to finance a $1 billion facelift 
at O'Hare Airport that will not ensure one new flight will land at that 
airport.
  In the district of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) where 
Midway Airport is located, they are using the PFCs to finance a $7 
million terminal expansion at Midway. This is Midway Airport. As 
Members can see, they have the longest runway, of 6,446 feet. 21st 
Century aircraft, 747s, 767s, and 777s, will never land, I say to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) at Midway Airport. The runway 
is too short. It has always been too short.
  Therefore, the $76 million that are being used at parking lots and 
terminal expansion without increasing runway length or space between 
runways and taxiways at Midway Airport is just another example of how 
taxpayers and air travelers are paying resources, increased resources 
under Air 21, without enhancing capacity at some of our Nation's larger 
airports.
  This is Midway Airport. This is O'Hare Airport, under its present 
configuration. As Members can see, O'Hare Airport, while the busiest 
airport in the world, is in need of several major improvements in order 
to increase the length of its runways so that 21st century aircraft can 
land at this airport.

[[Page 12894]]

  Mr. Chairman, unless we use passenger facility charges in a way to 
expand runways, to lengthen runways, to lengthen the space between 
runways and taxiways, to take airspace more seriously and spacing 
between aircraft, and not just use the passenger facility charge for 
offsite airport projects, including the building of highways and light 
rail across our country, we will indeed never meet the expectations of 
Air 21.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), but I 
respect enormously the sincerity and integrity with which he offers 
this amendment. I appreciate very much his concerns about the use of 
PFC charges.
  When in 1990, as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I crafted the 
passenger facility charge in conjunction with my colleagues on the 
Republican side, then our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, and with then Secretary of Transportation 
Sam Skinner, we had in mind that the increased revenues from the PFC 
would be invested in taxiways, runway improvements; airside, hardside 
improvements.
  But as it turned out over the years, airlines opposed those 
improvements, airport neighbors opposed major runway improvement 
projects, and airports turned their attention to the ground side; that 
is, the access for passengers to the gates and to their aircraft.
  Over the years, 23 percent of the PFCs were invested in the hard side 
improvements and in increasing capacity for airports, increasing 
competition by adding gates for new competitors.
  However, in the nearly decades since the PFC has been in operation, 
those earlier obstructions to investment in runway and taxiway 
improvements have been overcome. More of the PFC dollars now are being 
invested in competition-enhancing projects, and the need for those 
projects is only growing in the future. We have to give airports the 
ability to meet those requirements through this additional PFC.
  The basic problem with gentleman's amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that 
it would give another level of government control over what has been a 
local Airport Authority power.
  The prohibition in Federal law that we adjusted in 1990 with the PFC 
was to lift the prohibition on airport authorities to impose revenue-
generating measures. That prohibition applies to the Airport Authority. 
We did not give such power or legal authority to State government.
  The gentleman's amendment would provide that the State of Illinois, 
not a government authority that has responsibility directly for O'Hare, 
would gain control over a portion of PFCs that would be generated by 
O'Hare. In fact, the provision would allow the fees collected at O'Hare 
to be used for any airport project anywhere else within the State.
  That is not appropriate. That violates the integrity of the PFC and 
of the concept that we initiated in 1990 with the passenger facility 
charge.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would kindly respond to a question, 
there are no present plans, according to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), as heard earlier by most Members who were present and 
those who were listening by way of C-Span, indicating that one PFC 
dollar, according to the mayor of the city of Chicago, will be used for 
new runways; that not one PFC dollar would be used to expand the 6,446-
foot runway at Midway Airport.
  My specific question is, since the mayor of the city of Chicago has 
indicated that PFC revenues will not be used to expand or lengthen 
runways, they are using most of the PFC revenues, if not all, as the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) said earlier, for offsite rail 
projects, offsite airport projects.
  I am interested in gentleman's position on capacity and expanding 
capacity consistent with the 1991 Act.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the 
gentleman asked me a question earlier in regard to what Mayor Daley had 
to say at a meeting of the Illinois delegation. He made the statement 
that he would not use any of the PFC money for the extension of runways 
or additional runways at O'Hare Airport.
  I said to the gentleman, that is what I heard him say, but that is 
all I agreed to. I didn't say anything about off the airport or 
anything like that.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is 
absolutely, positively right. I was here when the proposal was made for 
this tax, and foolishly I believed that it was for providing funds to 
build a third airport, something I am for and something Chicago 
desperately needs, so I voted for it.
  When the third airport fell through because it had to be built in 
Chicago or it could not be built, then the money was diverted for other 
purposes. It has never gone for the purpose for which it was promised 
and intended. That is wrong. The amendment of gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) is right and ought to be supported.
  They say, we cannot beat City Hall. We are proving it again today. I 
am for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full 
committee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in regard to this particular 
amendment, I can certainly understand the position of the gentlemen 
from Illinois, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hyde, but I definitely disagree with 
them. I very strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Oberstar) made mention, the law states that money collected by an 
airport or an airport authority is to be spent at that airport or by 
that airport authority.
  The gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hyde, want to move 
the ability to spend PFC money collected at Midway or O'Hare to the 
State of Illinois. The State of Illinois has tried once before to do 
this. A Federal appellate court has turned them down and said that this 
would be illegal. The money must be spent at O'Hare and Midway Airport.
  On top of that, though, the new outstanding Republican Governor of 
Illinois, Mr. George Ryan, has categorically stated privately and 
publicly that he wants no PFC money from Midway Airport or from O'Hare 
Airport to go into any other airport in the State of Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a very nice blown-up picture there of 
Midway Airport. If the gentleman went a little bit farther west, the 
gentleman would even have my home in that picture. Unfortunately, the 
gentleman did not manage to do that.
  But the gentleman did mention the fact that we are spending a lot of 
money on building a new terminal at Midway Airport. The gentleman said 
that this is not going to increase capacity. That is an error on 
gentleman's part. The new terminal being built on the east side of 
Cicero Avenue will enable us to install 12 new gates at Midway Airport. 
This will definitely increase the capacity at Midway Airport.
  Right now Midway Airport emplanes about 1.1 million people a year. 
With

[[Page 12895]]

the new terminal and the new gates and the increased availability of 
that facility to people all over Chicagoland, we will have a capacity 
of close to 8 million emplanements a year.
  So I say to my good friend, the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Jackson 
and Mr. Hyde, that I understand their amendment, but their amendment 
goes against everything that the PFC has gone for in the past. I ask my 
colleagues here today, if this comes to a vote, to strongly reject this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
an amendment which will help move forward an important project for 
Chicago and the south suburbs, a third airport which is badly needed.
  People often say well, tell us why a third airport is needed for the 
city of Chicago. So I would like to list three reasons. One, of course, 
is, as we know, air travel is growing. Air travel is expected to triple 
in the next 25 years, triple to the point where we will have 90 million 
passengers travel through the Chicago metropolitan area.
  O'Hare and Midway will only be able to accommodate 60 million. 
Clearly, if we are going to accommodate that growth in air travel, the 
tripling of air travel, we must expand our capacity. The only way to 
expand our capacity is a south suburban third airport.
  The second reason, in a metropolitan area of 7\1/2\ million people in 
the Chicago metropolitan area, there are 2\1/2\ million who reside 
within a 45-minute radius of the proposed site near Peotone University 
Park, which is located in the district that I represent, the Chicago 
south suburbs.
  A population of 2\1/2\ million people justifies an airport in 
Baltimore or St. Louis.
  Third, when we think about the old adage that when we improve 
transportation we create jobs, we have to be honest and that does give 
us the opportunity to bring a quarter million new jobs to the Chicago 
metropolitan area. We can use them on the Chicago south side, the south 
suburbs.
  A south suburban third airport has bipartisan support. I am pleased 
that we have the support in leadership from our new Governor George 
Ryan, our new Senator Peter Fitzgerald, as well as bipartisan support 
within the House delegation from Illinois, from the gentlemen from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), (Mr. Hyde), (Mr. Ewing), (Mr. Rush) and myself.
  It is that kind of bipartisan support that has made this a good 
project that is important to aviation, as well as the Chicago area.
  I would also like to note that this past week the Illinois State 
legislature, as well as the Governor, approved $75 million by the State 
of Illinois to begin purchasing land and begin the process of moving 
forward on a south suburban third airport, and that was the key part of 
Governor Ryan's Illinois First Project proposal which was signed into 
law last week.
  This amendment is important because what it does is provides a 
revenue string to match what the State is already doing, to move 
forward with the south suburban third airport. I ask for bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) for this amendment. I am just sorry that the amendment 
will be withdrawn.
  This idea, this approach, toward building a third airport in the city 
of Chicago is much needed. It is much needed for many reasons, as has 
been stated by many, many others. Let me just say that in my district, 
the first district of Illinois, we depend on this type of economic 
development engine to help create jobs in my district, jobs that have 
been lost over the many, many years, particularly with the closure of 
the U.S. steel works there in the city of Chicago.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for this 
amendment. I strongly support a third airport, and I believe that this 
House should help achieve that particular objective.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the stated purpose of the PFC Act was to, and I quote, 
enhance safety or capacity of the national air transportation system, 
reduce noise from airports and furnish opportunities for enhanced 
competition among or between the carriers. In theory, this is a good 
policy. Today, with the passage of Air 21, that passenger facility 
charge or ticket tax will go from $3 to $6. While I have shown my 
colleagues that not one dollar is going to be spent on site for this 
particular airport, this airport with a 6,446 foot runway, a 747 will 
never land at this airport, a 767 will never land at this airport, a 
777 will never land at this airport, because they are spending a 
billion dollars creating first class waiting areas for passengers; not 
only at Midway Airport, but the same thing is occurring at O'Hare 
Airport and airports all across our country, because Air 21 fails to 
define the word ``capacity,'' leaving mayors in many municipalities 
with the ability to spend passenger facility charges as they so choose.
  Mr. Chairman, I am respectfully withdrawing this amendment, but the 
next amendment, which we will debate for the next hour, I look forward 
to supporting. I thank the ranking member for the opportunity, I thank 
the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), for the opportunity to debate this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 106-185.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Graham

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. 4 offered by Mr. Graham:
       Strike section 105 of the bill and redesignate section 106 
     of the bill as section 105. Conform the table of contents of 
     the bill accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and a Member opposed, each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, a quick summary of where we are at, as I understand it 
and believe it to be, there are a couple of things about the bill that 
are long overdue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 
quite eloquently pleaded his case that the trust fund, the Aviation 
Trust Fund, where we collect taxes for aviation purposes, should be 
taken off budget and should be used for the purposes intended.
  I think he used the term it was morally wrong to do otherwise. I am 
not so sure I would go that far but it is certainly not good business 
practices, and I applaud the gentleman for wanting to do that because 
we need to stop masking the debt, and these trust funds are in the 
asset column of the Federal Government in a general way and they should 
not be. We should not take people's tax money designated for a specific 
purpose and misappropriate it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) is absolutely right for doing that.
  The problem that I see is that we have done far more than that. We 
have taken the trust fund that has, I think, an $8 billion surplus this 
year and projected to be $86 billion by 2008 and we have emptied it out 
this year or are in the process of emptying it out.

[[Page 12896]]

  Beyond trust fund money, there are general revenue funds, and in 1997 
we came up with a balanced budget agreement and we assigned a number to 
every function of the government that we deal with; and families and 
businesses do that every day. We gave this area of our Federal 
Government a number, and unfortunately what we have done is not only 
have we taken the trust fund off budget and dumped all the money out, 
the surpluses and otherwise, between now and 2004 the Office of 
Management and Budget predicts that we will be missing the mark by $21 
billion. We will spend $21 billion more than we have allocated in our 
budget process, and that money has to come from somewhere.
  My concern is, what if the economy turns down? What happens to the 
next worthy cause that comes to the floor of this House where a case 
can be made for deviating from that number? What will happen is that 
all the gains we have achieved in the last 4 or 5 years will go down 
the tubes, and we will wake up one day when the economy chills out, and 
we will set in place spending plans that we just do not have enough 
money for and we are either going to raise taxes or cut government, and 
I do not really see much of a desire to cut government in good times or 
bad.
  So, unfortunately, the sum of where we are at now is that we have 
done one good thing and created a very bad thing and we are about to 
create another bad thing. Part of this bill allows for a doubling of 
the passenger facility charge that came into being in 1990. Ten years 
later we are going to double that under this bill.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and others have made a very 
good case that maybe it does not work right already so taking the trust 
fund off budget was a good thing. Spending a lot more money than 
allocated under the agreement is a horrible thing that is going to 
catch up with all of us, and to add on top of that doubling a facility 
charge that we are really not so sure how it works is just unnecessary.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes, 
one-half of that time, be allocated to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member, 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 rise in opposition to this amendment because there is 
a well-defined, indeed strictly defined, narrowly defined need to give 
the local airport authorities the flexibility to increase their 
passenger facility charges if they can make a case that it is 
necessary.
  This is a very, very carefully crafted part of this legislation, 
because we are in agreement that airport authorities simply should not 
be able to willy-nilly raise the PFC, but where they can demonstrate a 
clear-cut need, then I believe a case can be made.
  Let me say particularly to my conservative friends that those of us 
who are conservatives believe strongly that more and more power should 
be sent back home to the local area. PFCs are decisions made by the 
local airport authorities; either directly elected, in some cases, or 
appointed by the local elected officials. So we are sending back home 
this decision-making process.
  However, we are saying that it will be subject to more vigorous 
Federal oversight. A PFC can be raised above the $3 level only if the 
FAA finds the following: That it is needed to pay for high-priority 
safety, security, noise reduction or capacity enhancement projects and 
that the project cannot be paid for by available airport improvement 
grants, which are very significantly increased in this bill; in the 
case of a building, a road project, that the airside needs of the 
airport will first be met.
  Now, with the higher spending levels in this bill, the increased PFC 
will probably only be needed at the larger airports. However, it will 
be needed in some cases. The GAO has identified a $3 billion gap 
between the airport infrastructure needs and the available airport 
funds to meet those needs.
  Now, the higher trust fund spending in this bill closes two-thirds of 
that gap, but the PFC increase is needed to close the remainder of that 
gap in some areas and ensure that the airport safety and capacity 
projects are fully paid for. This is not a Federal tax but it is a 
local charge that local governing bodies can make the decision over so 
the battle can be fought out back home and not made here in Washington, 
D.C.
  So for all of those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my 
appreciation to our ranking member and to our chairman for the careful 
work that has been orchestrated in this bill. I rise in opposition to 
the Graham amendment, and rise in strong support of Air 21 and 
especially the provision raising the passenger facility charge cap from 
$3 to $6.
  This provision complements Air 21's prime focus to ensure that our 
aviation system receives the funding it needs to be safe, efficient and 
able to meet its needs as we enter the new millennium. All of us want 
to have safe planes and I do not think there is anyone here who would 
work for anything less than that.
  Also, in my particular area, our Dallas-Fort Worth airport has been 
the economic beacon for that entire area. We simply do not have the 
dollars in any other way but to continue to try to get the assistance 
of this fund for the expansions and improvements that are needed.

                              {time}  1800

  By paying a price equal to the cost of a cup of coffee in a terminal, 
each passenger flying out of an airport can help make that airport 
faster, safer, and stronger. Instead of making everyone pay for these 
improvements, the PFCs charge only those people who use and benefit 
from the airport.
  The PFC provision provides flexibility to airports in using the PFCs 
for airport expansions and improvements. The provision in AIR21 allows 
airports to use PFCs in the construction of gates and related areas, 
which is defined to include the basic shell of terminal buildings.
  This will allow airports to use the PFC funds to finance expansion 
projects, which will increase competition and reduce congestion at our 
Nation's busiest airports. Further, this provision gives local 
officials the ability to use funds generated by local airports to build 
terminals at that particular airport.
  This, in conjunction with Federal aviation planning, will bring us 
fully into the 21st century.
  Raising the cap on PFCs give airports flexibility in revenue 
production. For example, I have the pleasure of representing part of 
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
  D/FW's customers would receive great benefits if the PFC cap were 
raised. The tax on aviation fuel, which is traditionally passed on to 
the passenger, is part of the aviation funding system. For every dollar 
D/FW customers pay in aviation fuel taxes, D/FW receives 11 cents in 
Airport Improvement Program funds.
  In contrast, for every dollar in PFCs paid by D/FW customers, D/FW 
Airport receives 97 cents. PFCs are the most cost-effective way for 
airports to make improvements to benefit those who use the airport.
  Mr. Chairman, PFCs make a difference. This attempt to strip the PFC 
provisions is short-sighted and politically motivated. I urge my 
colleagues to look toward the future. I urge my colleagues to look at 
PFCs in context and see that this minimal charge makes a world of 
difference. Please vote against the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand the statements just made, the only 
thing

[[Page 12897]]

protecting one and one's wallet is some Federal Government agency going 
to say no to some local government agency they regulate in terms of 
taxes. If that makes my colleagues feel good, then vote for this. But 
the consequence is that they are going to double this tax, and it is 
going to cost $1.425 billion a year to the consuming public.
  All of these accounting gimmicks we are talking about up here are 
inside the Beltway. But there is only one taxpayer no matter what kind 
of budget one is talking about. It comes out of one wallet, and we are 
trying to protect people.
  This bill has spent more than it should, and we are adding a tax on 
top of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois Mr. 
Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, competition and capacity concerns are not new. In fact, 
many of the same issues were raised in 1991 when the mayor of the city 
of Chicago came to this House under then the leadership of the very 
powerful Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski where he proposed 
building a third airport in the city of Chicago.
  Heeding warnings from the FAA, the mayor hoped to ease overcrowding 
and boost competition with a new airport on Chicago's south side. At 
the time, the Federal Government was cutting funds for new airport 
construction. But then our most powerful Democratic Ways and Means 
chairman pushed through legislation which created a $3 passenger 
facility charge, and the stated purpose of that PFC was to do this, 
enhance safety or capacity of the national air transportation system, 
reduce noise from airports, and furnish opportunities for enhanced 
competition among or between carriers.
  Now, what does that have to do with the parking lot? What does that 
have to do with light rail being built to and from inner-city areas to 
airports? It has absolutely nothing to do with them, because local 
mayors are using the passenger facility charge for their own purpose.
  How about this? In Chicago, the mayor's third airport was never 
built. Yet he continues to collect a $3 passenger facility charge. 
Because of AIR21, he is going to get a $6 passenger facility charge, 
$6.
  So how do we increase capacity? Here is one of the shortcomings of 
the bill, Mr. Chairman, it does not define capacity for the passenger 
facility charge to be used on site. How do most pilots define capacity? 
Not first-class waiting areas and red carpet rooms at airports or more 
beverages or more leather seats for passengers waiting to get on a 
flight.
  They define capacity in the air, in the air, spacing between planes. 
That is a safety concern. They define it on the ground, the length of a 
runway. 747s, 767s, 777s, hey, a trend is emerging here. Aircraft are 
getting larger. They are not landing on little bitty runways. They need 
longer runways. Because their wing spans are getting wider, guess what, 
they also need more space between runways and taxiways. But the 
passenger facility charge is not being used for that purpose.
  So I stand in support of the amendment of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham). I am urging you, my colleagues, to support the 
Graham amendment. It makes sense.
  Until Congress is willing to define the passenger facility charge 
consistent with the 1991 intent of Congress, and that is to enhance 
competition amongst the carriers and capacity of our national air 
transportation system, that has nothing to do with the space between 
first class and coach on an aircraft, I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). It has nothing to do with that. It has 
everything to do with the length of runways and space between runways.
  Our FAA Administrator has just recently argued that we need 10 new 
airports the size of O'Hare in order to handle the capacity concerns. 
That is where the passenger facility charge revenue should be going, 
taking pressure off of existing systems as opposed to trying to find 
more ways to add pressure to existing systems.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, the bill and the law makes it very clear 
that PFCs can only be spent on airport property.
  Secondly, there is an implication here that we must not trust local 
government, because no PFC can be increased unless it not only meets 
these conditions that we place upon it, but also it is something that 
the local government, the local airport authority decides to do. I 
thought we conservatives trusted local government in many cases more 
than we trust the Federal Government.
  The last point I would make is that it is incorrect to assume that 
just because we increase PFCs, that airports will automatically adopt 
them. Indeed, today in America, with a $3 passenger facility charge, 
there are numerous large hub airports which do not charge PFCs, 
including the busiest airport in America, which is the Atlanta airport, 
charges zero PFC. In fact, there are seven of the largest hubs of 
America that charge no PFCs, and 15 of the medium-sized hubs which 
charge no PFCs. So the suggestion that one is just going to run out and 
charge PFCs simply is not supported by the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in 1998, there were 648 million 
passenger enplanements. So this is not some theoretical esoteric 
subject that most people have no knowledge of.
  We all know what it is like to fly today. We all know there are 
tremendous problems with it, problems that are developing because of 
the increased usage of air transportation. It is a good thing that this 
is increasing, but we need to keep up with the development of our 
capacity in order to handle it.
  In 1998, 23 percent of major air carrier flights were delayed. 
Everyone has experienced that kind of a delay.
  Although aircraft technology continues to improve, the time to fly 
between several major cities has increased over the past 10 years 
simply due to congestion. To account for delays, airlines have 
increased scheduled flight times on nearly 75 percent of the 200 
highest volume domestic routes.
  I might add, we have all experienced that situation where we take off 
late because the destination airport is exercising control and will not 
let us take off because they have got too much traffic. We have also 
been in the air where we circle around and around and around waiting 
for the ability to land.
  American Airlines, just to take one airline, has estimated that, by 
the year 2014, it expects delays to increase by a factor of 3, or 300 
percent, bringing its hub and spoke systems to its knees. Mr. Chairman, 
this is not just American Airlines. This will be the case more or less 
to the same extent with all of the other major airlines.
  So what are we going to do about it now to avoid a crisis in the 
future? We are going to let local airports increase the fee they charge 
on tickets in order to improve their airports. What is the matter with 
that? That is real local control. It is ridiculous to call this a tax 
increase, in my humble opinion.
  Now, good friends like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) 
and others feel differently. I respect their reasoning. I just disagree 
with them. When a local jurisdiction imposes a new fee, I do not call 
it a Federal tax.
  Let me just quote, if I may, now as an illustration of what happens 
when we increase the fee. It does not mean automatically everybody pays 
a little more, because there is competition. When we allow these 
airports to charge those fees, they add new gates. When they add new 
gates, they get new airlines coming in. When new airlines come in, 
there is competition, and the price of the ticket drops.
  Just consider what happened to take BWI, Baltimore Washington 
International Airport around here. They used their passenger facility 
charge to build gates. Southwest Airlines moved into those gates, both 
in Providence and at BWI, and they commenced service between Providence 
and BWI.

[[Page 12898]]

  The Department of Transportation analysis showed that the average 
one-way fare plummeted from $181 to $53, a drop of 71 percent. 
Passenger traffic for the 3-month period increased by 884 percent. So 
obviously the public liked it.
  Mr. Chairman, a passenger is much better off paying a PFC, a 
passenger facilities charge, on top of a $53 fare rather than paying 
$181 without a PFC. So in many cases, these PFC charges actually result 
in a great net reduction in cost to the consumer. The consumer should 
support this.
  For that reason, I oppose the Graham amendment and urge all of my 
colleagues to support the principle of local control and of competition 
and of improvement in our airport facilities. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Graham amendment which will strike the provision in AIR21 that allows 
local airports to increase their passenger facility charge from $3 to 
$6. In 1990, when the PFC was established, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and I worked very diligently in its behalf. We were the 
strongest supporters of the PFC in this House of Representatives. I 
today am still one of its strongest supporters.
  PFCs are a critical local source of funding for airport 
infrastructure. Unfortunately, PFCs are the only type of local revenue 
that is capped by the Federal Government. I want to run that by my 
colleagues once again. Unfortunately, PFCs are the only type of local 
revenue that is capped by the Federal Government. However, just because 
the Federal Government sets the cap on PFCs, it does not mean that PFCs 
are a Federal tax and that an increase in PFCs is a Federal tax 
increase.
  PFCs are not collected by the Federal Government, are not spent by 
the Federal Government, and are never deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 
Rather, PFCs are collected locally, spent locally, and fund important 
local airport projects. Unlike a Federal tax, the PFC is paid only by 
air passengers who use and benefit from the airport.
  PFC revenues allow local airports to fund needed safety, security, 
capacity, competition, and noise projects that otherwise would have to 
wait years for Federal AIP funds or may not be eligible for AIP funds. 
For example, many airports throughout the Nation have used PFC revenues 
to build shared and common use gates which can be used by any carrier 
wishing to serve the airport. The additional gates which are not 
eligible under the AIP program have helped increase the capacity of the 
airports as well as help increase competition, which is very, very 
important today.
  Because local airport authorities best know their airport and how it 
operates, they also know the best way to use scarce aviation funding 
sources. PFCs are the most often used on projects that provide tangible 
benefits to passengers using the airport, increasing the comfort and 
convenience of air travel.
  It is important to note that PFCs are not just a free pot of money 
for local airport authorities. PFCs cannot be collected until a local 
airport needing funding is identified, and they must expire after a 
specific project is completed, and it must be planned from beginning to 
completion.
  In addition, PFCs cannot be spent on just any airport project, but 
only on specific eligible airport development projects approved by the 
FAA.

                              {time}  1815

  Please, I ask my colleagues all to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, increasing passenger facility 
charges are, in reality, increased taxes on America's airline 
passengers. I think it is kind of ludicrous to say they are not just 
because they are local. They require a Federal approval; therefore, we 
do control it, and it does go into the national system.
  Supporters argue it is just a user fee. We are too fond of using 
fancy words and arguments to hide our intentions. In Texas, we call it 
a tax, and that is what it is. Calling this tax a facility charge is 
like calling airline food dinner.
  This tax will just force passengers to pay more for their ticket. And 
any time the government takes more of our hard-earned money, that is a 
tax increase. It is regressive, and it will harm those who can least 
afford it; namely, families and small business people who use airline 
service to visit relatives and grow their businesses.
  We continue to hear the rhetoric about how we must take steps to 
protect the rights of airline passengers. What better way to start than 
by not allowing a tax increase and letting Americans keep more of what 
they earn? This bill is already using up part of the surplus we were 
going to use for tax relief. I think it is criminal we would deny 
Americans the tax relief they deserve.
  We must not pass another tax on the American consumer. Their burden 
is already too high. We should be pushing for tax relief, not tax 
increases.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Graham amendment and stop taxing 
the consumers' paychecks.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Graham amendment. In providing both adequate and fair funding 
for our Nation's aviation infrastructure to carry us into the 21st 
century, I believe that costs to individual airline passengers must not 
be increased.
  Under current law, local airports are authorized to collect a $3 per 
passenger per flight segment charge, with a maximum of $12 per round 
trip ticket. This legislation proposes to double this charge to $6, 
breaking the current $12 cap and allowing a maximum of $24 per round-
trip ticket.
  According to CBO, this airfare increase will cost American taxpayers, 
Mr. Chairman, $475 annually for each $1 increase in the passenger 
facility charge. If each airport decides to double their PFC, as AIR 21 
proposes, this charge will ultimately cost taxpayers over $1.4 billion 
annually.
  I believe this cost increase is both unnecessary and unfair to 
American airline passengers and taxpayers. Further increasing the PFC 
negatively impacts the growing low-fare airline industry which provides 
both competition and reasonably priced air transportation.
  The passenger facility charge essentially functions as a tax, hitting 
hardest those who can least afford it, such as families, leisure 
travelers and those operating small businesses. As we all know, summer 
is a highly traveled time, when affordable air travel is vital for 
Americans traveling across the country to visit their family and 
friends.
  The amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) 
ensures that the current $3 passenger facility charge will not be 
doubled to $6.
  Mr. Chairman, let us remember the taxpayers and vote for the Graham 
amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Well, we have heard all the arguments now, or virtually all of them, 
but the one that keeps coming back is the PFC is a tax, it is a burden 
on America's airline passengers.
  Well, let me just take us all back where we started with all this in 
1990: 7\1/2\ million hours of delay annually, costing Americans $14 
billion; need for capacity; need for access to the runways of this 
Nation's airports. And it was the business travelers of America, it was 
the Airline Passengers Association and the business traveler, now 
called the Business Traveler Coalition Organization, that came to my 
ranking member at the time, Mr. Bill Clinger, and John Paul 
Hammersmith, the ranking Republican on the full committee, and me, and 
said we need help; we are ready to support an additional charge to 
supplement the airport improvement program in order to build the 
capacity we need at the Nation's airports.

[[Page 12899]]

  Why are the business travelers important? They are only 10 percent of 
the passengers, but they generate 50 percent of the revenues. And they 
said it is important to us to build capacity at the Nation's airports 
and we are ready to support a passenger facility charge. And we 
included it in that legislation and we passed it.
  It is needed for competition. This bill requires that large and 
medium hubs dominated by one or two airlines have to file a competition 
plan before they can have their PFC approved or receive an AIP grant. 
Competition with the PFC has been important for one of the Nation's 
most progressive low-fare carriers, Southwest Airlines.
  At Columbus, Southwest and Delta wound up with gates built with PFCs; 
Oakland, new terminal gates to be built with PFCs; Ontario, California, 
two new terminals with PFCs to serve Southwest Airlines; Orlando 
accommodated Southwest; PFC to build terminal expansion and capacity 
for Southwest Airlines; Tampa; and others are in the works. Southwest 
Airlines is one of the prime beneficiaries, as are many other carriers 
who did not come in and ask for but benefitted from these capacity 
enhancements.
  Safety is critical. No airport under this legislation will be 
permitted to impose a PFC above $3 unless they ensure in their plan 
submitted to the FAA that airside safety needs are being met.
  Capacity. Overall, capital development projects take 5 to 7 years to 
build at airports across this country. They are complex, large projects 
that need long lead times for design and engineering and they need a 
guaranteed revenue stream. The PFC provides that guaranteed revenue 
stream that the airports can use to improve capacity and enhance 
safety, provide competition, and ensure that America's travelers get to 
and from their destinations in the time that they require.
  And, finally, this is a local initiative. No one directs or requires 
an airport to impose a PFC. They make that decision on their own. As 
one after another of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has 
said, this is a good conservative issue. Conservatives support it, 
liberals support it, moderates support it. It passed overwhelmingly. 
Airports support it, airlines support it, travelers support it; and let 
this body support it by defeating this amendment and moving America 
into the 21st century.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, under current law, the local airports are 
authorized to collect a $3 per passenger fee. I represent one of the 
busy airports in the country, a medium-sized airport, which has not 
currently charged the fee. I realize our airport is definitely the 
economic engine for our community and we rely on it a lot, and it is 
very important to what happens in growth because we are a fast-growing 
area. But no matter how we cut it, this is a tax increase.
  There is currently a surplus in the aviation trust account, and I 
just do not think it is right for Congress to be at this point placing 
an added burden on small businesses and families. We are talking about 
tax relief and we have been promising that to the American people, and 
I believe it is pretty hypocritical of us to come back now and 
implement a $3 tax increase on each airline ticket that the people in 
this country purchase.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that I will support this 
worthwhile amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) has 8\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, right now airline passengers face an 8 percent domestic 
ticket tax; they face a $12 international departure and arrival charge; 
they face paying taxes of 4.3 cents per gallon on domestic jet fuel; 
and right now they face up to a maximum of a $3, by the year 2000, 
domestic per-flight segment fee. This legislation raises that fee.
  My colleagues, a tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase. 
Fundamentally, this money is reaching into the pockets of the American 
people and increasing the charge on those who want to fly. Sure, our 
airports are economic engines and they need funds to operate, but the 
case that they need these funds has not yet been made. And for many 
people the ability to take a discounted short flight to go on their 
vacation is vitally important to them.
  Why do we need to double this fee from $3 to $6 at this particular 
point in time? The National Taxpayers Union has written on this point 
and will score this vote, and they say there is no need for this tax 
increase. At a time when we should be cutting taxes for the American 
people, at a time when virtually everyone in this room agrees that the 
American people are taxed and taxed very heavily, instead of cutting 
taxes, we are increasing taxes. We are giving the local authorities the 
ability to raise the fees they already charge passengers.
  Is the 8 percent domestic ticket tax not enough? Is the $12 
international departure and arrival charge not enough? Is the 3.4 cent 
per gallon domestic jet fuel tax not enough? No, the answer is we need 
to increase it. Right now we will increase it from $3 to a maximum of 
$6 per flight segment. The cumulative rate will go from $12 per flight 
to $24 per flight.
  We in Phoenix, Arizona lots of times like to go to San Diego, 
California for the weekend, and we can do that for $39. If we pass this 
and they add on what they might be able to add on, perhaps as much as 
$24 or even $12 for that flight, we will have taken a $39 ticket and 
raised it to $41, $49, $51, maybe even more than that.
  This is a regressive tax which is not needed. I urge my colleagues to 
join me and support the Graham amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we close out the debate, I think it is appropriate now to go over 
some of the arguments and talk about what we conservatives believe 
about this bill in general.
  One of the arguments is that local control is better than Washington 
control. Count me in on that argument. But if my colleagues are going 
to define local control this way, count me out.
  Here is what the opposition is saying. The Congress in 1990 
authorized airport groups to be able to tax the consumer, and now we 
are going to let them double that tax 10 years later. But the only way 
they can do it is to have a Federal Government agency saying no to 
them. How many people feel good about that? Is that the type of local 
control we signed up for when we came to Congress; to authorize a tax 
at the Federal level, to be implemented at the local level with a 
Federal agency saying yes or no?
  If my colleagues want their fingerprints on this, vote ``no.'' If my 
colleagues believe taxing people to the tune of $475 million a year by 
raising it every dollar should be on their watch and they do not care 
if their fingerprints are on it, vote ``yes.'' But that is not local 
control. That is bastardizing the concept of local control.
  This is not a fiscally sound measure. Taking the trust fund off 
budget is the right thing to do, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). On that he is absolutely right. But to 
accomplish that good goal, we blow a hole in the budget caps and we 
spend $21 billion over the next 4 years that has to come from somebody 
else's pocket, either from the tax cuts or some other part of the 
government. We conservatives should stick to the budget numbers. And if 
we want to fix one bad part of the government, we should not create two 
other bad things in its wake. That is how we wake up with $5.4 trillion 
of debt.
  It is a good thing to take it off budget; it is a bad thing to 
overspend in this

[[Page 12900]]

area of the government to the tune of $21 billion. And a lousy thing to 
do in the name of being a conservative is tax people with a new way of 
taxing them; call it local when it is not and add a $3 tax when they 
are not administering the tax they created in 1990 in a correct 
fashion.
  And does it affect people? Seventy-five percent of the people that 
get on airplanes have this tax hit them.

                              {time}  1830

  Four hundred and seventy-five million dollars for every dollar they 
increase. I do not know what Washington is about any longer in terms of 
conservative and liberal. But I know this, that they are paying taxes, 
that the American public, no matter what we call it, whether we call it 
a trust fund, whether we call it general revenue, it comes out of their 
pocket. That is the one thing in common.
  There is one group of people sending us all this money, and we think 
of a million ways to spend more of it and distance ourselves from it. 
We busted the budget. We have emptied the trust fund. And we are going 
to tax people $1.4 billion and say it is somebody else's problem. Stop 
that.
  This bill is excessive enough. Do some good for those people working 
real hard out there and who cannot stand to have any more money taken 
out of their pocket, and stop bastardizing concepts in the name of 
doing good.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on this side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining one minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get this straight. No airport is required to 
impose a passenger facility charge. Before a passenger facility charge 
can be imposed by an airport, it must file a plan. That plan must, 
under this bill, include provisions for the safety, competition, and 
show how it is going to enhance capacity. That is what the passenger 
facility charge was intended for in the first place.
  Of the Nation's 531 primary airports, 161 of them in the last 9 years 
have chosen not to impose a passenger facility charge. No one is 
required. It is a local decision.
  Do my colleagues want their airport to be able to compete in the 
Nation's airspace? Do my colleagues want their business people to be 
able to compete in the market in which they are operating? Do they want 
their passengers to be able to have access to the airport?
  If the decision is yes, then they put the PFC in and they do the 
things that the passengers need and they make it a public policy 
process. That is what this is all about.
  It could not be fairer. It could not be better. It could not for 
better for America for now and for into the 21st century. Vote down 
this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. A couple of the 
comments that have recently been made, I am sure inadvertently, 
factually are not accurate.
  For example, this does not bust the budget. The funds are taken from 
the $788 billion tax cut. Indeed, CBO scores this as a $14.3 billion 
increase, all of which comes from the aviation ticket tax. But that was 
another debate that has already taken place, and the House has spoken 
overwhelmingly in support of our legislation in that regard.
  This indeed is a local tax. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) has quite accurately described it. And it is limited, limited 
to safety, capacity, noise, and security.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) made an excellent point 
when he reminded us that PFCs enable us to build more gates at 
airports, and more gates mean more competition. And indeed, most 
significantly, where we have more competition, we see the price go 
down.
  The example he used, of course, was the Baltimore flight, where close 
to $100 is saved. So a $3 PFC is really minuscule by comparison. And 
most importantly perhaps, this is not only a local decision, but it is 
a decision where many airports have chosen not to impose PFCs which 
they are able to impose today should they choose to do so.
  Indeed, along with over a hundred airports that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) mentioned that do not have passenger facility 
charges, 46 of our hubs today do not have PFCs.
  So let us let the local people make the decision so they can do what 
is best for their economy and their community. Vote down this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because I strongly believe that the funds collected to improve our 
airline industry should be dedicated for their intended purpose. The 
legislation will ensure that future aviation taxes will be dedicated to 
promptly fund the capital needs of our aviation system and to provide a 
safe travel environment for the American people.
  I believe the issue is very simple. Money collected for air 
improvements should be used for that purpose as they become available. 
We all have needs in our district. Bishop airport in Flint needs new 
radar, Harry Browne in Saginaw needs an instrument landing system and 
Wurtsmith's runway needs massive improvements. Why should these 
projects wait if the dollars are available?
  We have all had frustrating experiences with air travel, whether it 
be delays for mechanical reasons or the plane is over-booked. It is 
because more people are using air transportation than ever before and 
we have been unable to keep up with consumer demands on the airline 
industry. This has resulted in congestion problems, flight delays and 
problems with air traffic control systems. It is important for the 
general public's safety that we support every effort to make our 
airports and airplanes as reliable, secure and as safe as possible. 
AIR-21 is a comprehensive and common-sense approach that will lead to 
safer travel for the flying public.
  AIR-21 will provide support to airports to modernize their systems 
and will provide long term investments by increasing funding for the 
Airport Improvement Program for upkeep with the runways and other 
capital investments. This legislation also increases support for 
smaller airports who often have limited resources to keep up with 
technology.
  By taking the trust funds off budget, we will be able to dedicate 
more funds to increase the safety and security of the traveling 
public--our constituents. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
and support final passage of this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 245, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               AYES--183

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose

[[Page 12901]]


     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Gordon
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Lewis (GA)
     Pryce (OH)

                             {time}   1857

  Mr. CLAY, Mr. BALDACCI, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Ms. CARSON 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MOORE, Mrs. WILSON and Messrs. TERRY, ROEMER, CONDIT, BRYANT, 
FLETCHER, HUTCHINSON and LOBIONDO changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 5 printed 
in Part B of House Report 106-185.


                 amendment no. 5 offered by mr. andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. 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. 5 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       In section 126 of the bill--
       (1) insert ``(a) State Block Grant Program and Fiscal Year 
     2000.--'' before ``Section 47109(a)''; and
       (2) insert at the end the following:

       (b) Airports Subject to Emergency Response Agreements.--
     Section 47109 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (b) and (d)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Airports Subject to Emergency Response Agreements.--
     If the sponsor of an airport and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency or a State or local government entity, that 
     has jurisdiction over emergency responses at the airport or 
     in an area that includes the airport, enter into an agreement 
     that makes the airport subject to the control of such Agency 
     or entity during an emergency for the conduct of emergency 
     response activities by such Agency or entity and such sponsor 
     submits to the Secretary of Transportation a copy of such 
     agreement, the United States Government share of allowable 
     project costs incurred for a project at the airport while the 
     agreement is in effect shall be 100 percent.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this summer and throughout the year around our country, 
we will unfortunately be faced with many natural disasters: forest 
fires, floods, other significant storms that deal a great blow to local 
communities. One of the key aspects of our disaster relief and disaster 
prevention effort is the use of airplanes in an emergency situation. 
Whether it is to put out fires or to airlift supplies and materiel, the 
use of our aircraft in a time of emergency is an essential ingredient 
towards solving a problem. Equally essential is the use of small 
airports and airfields around our country.
  For example, in my area of New Jersey, there is a small airport that 
often serves as a point of departure for airplanes that fight forest 
fires in the New Jersey pinelands. It is very important that these 
airports remain a part of our national air system, whether it is for 
emergency relief or whether it is for business or personal travel.
  Many of these airports are very challenged when they apply under the 
Airport Improvement Program because of the local match requirement. 
Some of the airports are run by public and municipal authorities that 
have a hard time raising the matching funds; others are privately 
owned, usually small business people, also finding it difficult to 
struggle to meet the matching funds.
  The idea behind my amendment is that the real measurable and tangible 
economic value of that disaster relief be credited toward the local 
matched portion of the AIP grant. In other words, a small airport that 
is instrumental in our efforts to prevent or provide relief from 
disaster would be credited on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value 
of the emergency service that that airport is rendering, the lost 
income that that airport is rendering, as a matching requirement for 
the AIP grant.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this proposal makes sense from the point 
of view of emergency disaster relief. It is a fair measure economically 
for small airports, and I believe it would serve our Nation's air 
traffic system in a common-sense way.
  I have been privileged to discuss this matter with the chairman of 
the committee and members of the staff, and I understand that he has 
expressed an interest in working with us to try to facilitate these 
concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the gentleman. It 
would be my hope that we could work

[[Page 12902]]

this out, and on that basis I understand the gentleman is prepared to 
withdraw the amendment, and we will see what we can do; we will 
certainly try to work something out.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and ranking minority Member for their willingness to work out a 
solution to this problem.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  This amendment would substantially undermine a basic concept of our 
airport program: that an airport receiving a federal grant should 
provide a local matching share of from 10 to 25 percent to demonstrate 
local commitment to and support of a project.
  Under the amendment, any airport could escape the requirement for the 
local share by signing an agreement with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency or a local emergency service, such as a fire 
department, giving that federal or local entity control over the 
airport in case of an emergency. We have no information available on 
how many airports already have these agreements. Nor do we have any 
indication that any response unit feels that these incentives are 
necessary to encourage airports to cooperate with them.
  I am concerned that under this amendment large numbers of airports 
would enter into agreements with emergency response units to gain a 
waiver of the requirement of a local match for AIP grants. In the 
absence of a strong showing that this incentive is needed to ensure the 
protection of human life and safety, I do not think we should undermine 
the requirement for a local match for AIP funds.
  I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed 
in part B of House Report 106-185.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       At the end of section 201 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Mitigation Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Before the Secretary of Transportation may 
     take any action under subsections (e), (f), and (j) of 
     section 41714 of title 49, United States Code (as amended by 
     subsections (a) and (b) of this section), that would result 
     in additional flights to or from a high density airport (as 
     defined in section 41714(h) of such title), the airport 
     operator must submit to the Secretary, and the Secretary must 
     approve, a program for mitigating aviation noise in areas 
     surrounding the airport that would otherwise result from the 
     additional flights.
       (2) Consultation and public notice.--An operator may submit 
     a program to the Secretary under paragraph (1) only after--
       (A) consulting with public agencies and planning 
     authorities in the area surrounding the airport, United 
     States Government officials having local responsibility for 
     the airport, and air carriers using the airport; and
       (B) providing notice and an opportunity for a public 
     hearing.
       (3) Contents.--A program submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall state the measures the operator has taken or proposes 
     to take to mitigate aviation noise described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (4) Approvals.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove 
     a program submitted under paragraph (1) not later than 180 
     days after receiving the program. The Secretary shall approve 
     a program that--
       (i) has been developed in accordance with the requirements 
     of this subsection; and
       (ii) provides satisfactory mitigation of aviation noise 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (B) Deadline.--A program is deemed to be approved if the 
     Secretary does not act within the 180-day period.
       (C) Flight procedures.--The Secretary shall submit any part 
     of a program related to flight procedures to control the 
     operation of aircraft to the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration. The Administrator shall approve or 
     disapprove that part of the program.
       (5) Airport noise or access restrictions.--Notwithstanding 
     section 47524 or any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     may approve, and an airport operator may implement, as part 
     of a program submitted under paragraph (1) airport noise or 
     access restrictions on the operation of any aircraft that was 
     not originally constructed as a stage 3 aircraft.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to help 
address one of the most contentious issues in this bill, as it affects 
four large metropolitan airports. For more than two decades, National, 
JFK, LaGuardia, and O'Hare Airports have operated with a slot 
reservation system. It was developed for safety reasons, to limit the 
number of airplanes serving these congested airports.
  According to the Department of Transportation, this system is no 
longer necessary. The technology now in use in our air traffic control 
system can permit more flights at these four airports without 
compromising safety, apparently. Earlier this year, the Department of 
Transportation announced its support of a repeal of the slot 
reservation system.
  Some may question that call to repeal the system. I do not believe, 
though, that adequate consideration was given to the local communities 
that will be inundated with increased noise as a result of more 
flights. These communities and the local governments that represent 
them have made long-term decisions on the assumption that the total 
number of flights would remain fixed. Congress, in fact, placed in 
statute the total number of flights per hour at National Airport in 
return for transferring the day-to-day operations to a local, regional 
authority that was capable of raising capital to undertake the major 
improvements that we have seen at National and Dulles International 
Airport. The local authority, the Washington Metropolitan Airport 
Authority and the citizens kept their part of the bargain.
  If a majority of Congress is now inclined to mandate more flights at 
National and the other three slot-controlled airports, I think it is 
only fair that the local citizens should have a right to work with the 
airport operators on finding ways to offset the increased noise that 
these additional flights will inevitably bring.
  So in fairness to these communities, any increase in service should 
be premised on providing the communities adjacent to the airports with 
an opportunity to revise existing noise abatement programs. The 
amendment that the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I are 
offering would condition new air service at these four airports on the 
Secretary's approval of a new airport noise reduction program that 
would include local public input. As part of the noise reduction 
program, the local airport operators can include restrictions on the 
use of aircraft originally built for Stage 2 compliance.
  The amendment also addresses a growing concern about this potential 
loophole that can be exploited by some airlines to permit older, 
noisier Stage 2 commercial aircraft to remain in service beyond the 
December 31, 1999 deadline for Stage 3 compliance.
  Few are aware that FAA regulations on Stage 3 compliance allow older 
commercial aircraft to meet those requirements simply by modifying 
their operational manual and reducing the plane's fuel load. Operating 
with a reduced weight and fuel load, these carriers can recertify old 
Stage 2 airplanes to meet the upper noise level range permitted under 
Stage 3 requirements. Thus, these older, noisier Stage 2 planes can 
remain in commercial use at an airport with predominantly short-haul 
traffic like LaGuardia and National that serve smaller communities 
within a defined perimeter or provide frequent short-distance shuttles 
to major, larger cities. As a result, these airports could receive a 
disproportionate share of older Stage 2 airplanes, causing a major 
increase in aircraft noise.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not the intent of the Airport Noise and Capacity 
Act of 1990, which mandated this Stage 3 compliance, to allow older 
Stage 2 aircraft with no engine modifications to continue to use our 
Nation's commercial

[[Page 12903]]

airports. We need to fix this problem, and the first place to start is 
at those airports that can anticipate a significant increase in noise 
and flights.
  I think this is a reasonable amendment. I think that it finds a 
middle ground, and I would urge support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), control one-
half of our time, or 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will 
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am a bit surprised. I thought we had worked with the gentleman from 
Virginia to limit the number of flights at Reagan National Airport. But 
if we did not have an agreement there, then I accept that, and we will 
have to proceed accordingly.
  This is a bad amendment. It is a bad amendment particularly because 
it would allow local airports to prohibit aircraft with hush kits, 
while at the very same time the U.S. Government was in a trade dispute 
with the Europeans over this issue. Our government argued that the 
Europeans had no right to ban hush-kitted aircraft, and many of these 
aircraft are just as quiet as Stage 3 aircraft. The airlines spent 
millions on hush kits with the promise that they would be able to use 
them. This amendment would break that promise. Indeed, this House 
weighed in on this trade dispute, and we passed legislation earlier 
this year to ban the Concorde from flying here if the Europeans banned 
our hush-kitted aircraft.
  So it would be ironic, if not hypocritical, for us to now ban hush-
kitted aircraft in our own country after the position that we have 
taken with the Europeans.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment rolls back the clock on noise abatement. 
In 1990, this was a major issue: noise at America's airports. As chair 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I held 50 hours of hearings on this 
subject, along with my good friend and former Member Bill Clinger. In 
the end, in the legislation of that year, we crafted a requirement that 
all Stage 2 aircraft, 2,340 in the Nation's fleet at that time, would, 
by the end of this year, comply with Stage 3 requirements. We are 
there. By the end of this year, all aircraft in the domestic fleet will 
meet that requirement. This amendment deals not with whether aircraft 
meet that requirement, but how they meet that requirement.
  The point is that all aircraft will meet Stage 3 requirements by the 
end of this year. That should be sufficient. That was the standard. 
That was set so that we would not have each individual airport a 
patchwork quilt of regulations all across America; one aircraft could 
fly into this airport, but not into another one. That is nonsense. That 
is chaos.
  The reason we put on a standard is that we would have all airports on 
the same ground. However, National Airport has a stricter requirement 
on its curfew. Mr. Chairman, a 757 with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D cannot 
land at National Airport after 10 o'clock. They have to go to Dulles. 
How much more does the gentleman want to do? How much more chaos do we 
want to put in the aviation system? When there is a storm in the 
Midwest and aircraft are coming in, do we inconvenience passengers 
because this one aircraft with that engine does not meet this airport's 
stringent requirements? If we do this all across America, we will again 
be Balkanized in our aviation system.
  The point of Stage 3 was to set the standard: 288.3 decibels. Hush-
kitted aircraft meet that standard. Reengineered aircraft meet that 
standard. It is good enough for all of America, and it ought to be good 
for this airport as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only recognize a unanimous consent 
request that would extend time equally for both sides.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the time is 
equally divided, so if the gentleman is asking for 1 minute to be 
evenly divided so that the gentlewoman gets 30 seconds, plus another 30 
seconds on our side, that is fine with me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank him for this amendment, which I have also 
cosponsored with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton). Actually, it conditions new service at Reagan National, 
Kennedy, LaGuardia, and O'Hare Airports on approval of an airport noise 
program, developed with local input, by the Department of 
Transportation. The policies that are responsive to local concerns will 
help the aviation industry remain a good neighbor to the community it 
serves.
  I have to tell my colleagues, there is an awful lot of noise that 
impacts on our community. It is a growing problem, and we have had many 
people who have discussed with us the fact that they cannot even 
entertain on their patios; cannot even do anything but lock themselves 
into their homes with the increasing noise.
  Unlike oil spills or landfills, noise is an invisible pollutant, but 
the hazards are just as real. It causes stress, much the same as a 
traffic jam or the threat of a recession. According to experts, noise 
causes hearing loss, impaired health, and antisocial behavior.

                              {time}  1915

  I believe that the people of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia must have a voice in the ultimate determination of airport 
noise regulations. After all, these are the people whose lives will be 
affected for better or for worse by whatever rules are enacted.
  The Federal Government should not be in the business of operating 
airports. The Federal Government has plenty of clout over airports 
through the airport trust fund and its ability to overturn local 
decisions.
  The Moran Amendment would effectively address the concerns of the 
communities surrounding the high-density airports, and at the same time 
address the safety and economic concerns of the airport transportation 
system. So I urge a yes on the Moran Amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a distinguished member of our 
subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this, Air 21 already 
provides the largest ever increase in noise mitigation measures and 
funding. However, this amendment goes too far, and would end up 
eliminating service to and from many cities, and ultimately would drive 
up the cost of air fares all over the Nation.
  Hush-kitted aircraft already meet the very strict FAA stage 3 
requirements. Hush-kitted aircraft are just as quiet as any aircraft 
currently available. These hush kit measures have been approved by the 
FAA as acceptable means to meet the quieter, more restrictive stage 3 
requirements.
  Hush kits are manufactured in the U.S., and hush-kitted aircraft are

[[Page 12904]]

mainly U.S. aircraft. Restricting their operation for noise operations 
would be at odds with the FAA's finding that this technology satisfies 
the very highest noise requirements. It would also adversely affect 
U.S. manufacturers of hush kits and the value of U.S. hush-kitted 
planes.
  Finally, in February the House passed H.R. 661, threatening sanctions 
against the European Union if it implemented restrictive noise measures 
that would adversely affect hush-kitted aircraft. It would be totally 
inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, for this House to threaten the Europeans if 
they did this, and then come in and do it ourselves for some of our 
domestic flights.
  This measure proposed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is 
at odds with the spirit of H.R. 61, and would adversely affect U.S. 
manufacturers of hush kits and hush-kitted aircraft.
  I urge defeat of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-185.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 106-185 
     offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Strike section 201 of the bill.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill, and conform 
     the table of contents of the bill, accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes, 
the Chair believes. The Chair is trying to determine right now what the 
designated time under the rule is.
  If the chairman of the committee will bear with the Chair, he will 
have that information momentarily.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I believe the gentleman from Illinois has 40 minutes 
under the rule, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Parliamentarian is at this time just verifying 
that.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 
minutes on one side and 20 on the other, if that solves the problem.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman makes that unanimous consent request, I 
agree with it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The proponent and an opponent will each be recognized 
to control 20 minutes which the Chair is advised is consistent with the 
rule as submitted for printing.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 201 of the bill and 
maintains current law with respect to the high-density rule. Section 
201, as amended by the manager's amendment, eliminates the high-density 
rule for three of the four slot-controlled airports, O'Hare, LaGuardia, 
and JFK in New York, and modifies it for the fourth, Reagan National.
  Although the manager's amendment makes that elimination somewhat 
slower than was contemplated under the reported bill, the bottom line 
is that new flights start coming right away.
  Let me give some background about why I feel so strongly about this 
issue. Mr. Chairman, in 1968, the Federal Aviation Administration 
promulgated the high-density rule, or the slot rule. This was done to 
manage demand so that delays did not rise above unacceptable levels. 
That system worked well for 25 years.
  In response to demands to lift the rule, Congress in 1994 required 
the U.S. Department of Transportation to conduct a detailed study to 
determine whether there was additional capacity at the high-density 
rule airports and whether the high-density rule should be lifted.
  In May 1995, the Department of Transportation published its report in 
four volumes. One month later, the Department announced that based on 
this study, it would not change the slot limits at O'Hare or any other 
high-density-rule airport. This exhaustive study was released just 5 
years ago. If anything has changed since then, it is that the air 
traffic situation at these airports has gotten worse.
  Why does this matter to us? Many like to view the high-density rule 
as a parochial issue of importance only to Chicago, New York, and 
Washington. This is wildly inaccurate. The high-density rule is a 
safety issue and a national issue, particularly at O'Hare.
  According to the FAA study I just mentioned, O'Hare's maximum safe 
level is 155 operations per hour. O'Hare is already operating above 
that level without adding one more flight. Let me repeat, O'Hare is 
operating above its maximum safe level today without adding one more 
flight. Even under the changes made by the manager's amendment, we will 
start adding more flights right away; as I calculated, 80 new more 
flights a day.
  I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) in the manager's amendment to ease the pain of this change, 
but I cannot in good conscience support one more flight into O'Hare. By 
eliminating the high-density rule, by adding one more flight to O'Hare, 
much less 80 a day, we are courting disaster. We are shortening the 
odds that a crash will occur sooner or later.
  But this amendment is important to Members for another reason. 
Eliminating the high-density rule will cause traffic backups at O'Hare. 
In 1995, in the study, the Department found that eliminating the high-
density rule would more than double, do Members hear me, double delays 
for all travelers using O'Hare. Traffic backups at O'Hare invariably 
cause ripple effects throughout the entire air traffic system.
  If Members want to spend more time sitting on airplanes stuck on the 
tarmac, then by all means, oppose my amendment. If Members want the air 
traffic system to work better and faster and safer, then they should 
vote for my amendment.
  I have tried to talk about why this amendment is important to those 
who do not represent Chicago, New York, or Washington. Let me talk for 
a moment about the impact on my constituents.
  As I have already made clear, my district is the home of O'Hare 
airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. I am pleased to have 
O'Hare in my district. It creates numerous jobs, and by facilitating 
commerce, it build greater wealth for all of us.
  However, it also creates a substantial burden on those who live 
around it, all of whom are my constituents. As policymakers, we must 
balance the benefits against the burden. It is in that spirit I am 
offering this amendment.
  No one wants to live in a cloud of jet exhaust fumes. The FAA and the 
EPA do regulate the emissions from individual aircraft, but no one 
takes care of the problem of accumulating emissions around O'Hare. This 
is already severe. O'Hare is one of the three top toxic pollutant 
emitters in Illinois. It emits benzene, formaldehyde, and carcinogenic 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Pardon me if I resist dumping more 
of these pollutants into my constituents' neighborhoods, and pardon 
them if they do not want their children around these materials.
  Eliminating the high-density rule brings more flights and more 
pollution. These are not the only pollutants from O'Hare. The same is 
true for noise.

[[Page 12905]]

Many airplanes are still loud. They are getting better, but they are 
still loud. If you live around an airport, you suffer. If you live 
around O'Hare, you suffer severely. Eliminating the high-density rule 
means more flights, more noise, and more rattling windows for my 
constituents. I think they deserve better, so I urge Members' support 
for this amendment.
  Some have asked, why can I not simply accept the changes to the high-
density rule embodied in the manager's amendment. Let me explain, 
again, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster). He has a big bill and he has to balance a lot of 
interests. He does a remarkably good job in balancing those interests.
  However, my loyalty is to my constituents and I must put their 
interests first. I have already set out the reasons why they cannot 
accept one more slot. Even under the changes made in the manager's 
amendment, there will be a limited number of new slots for flights to 
underserved cities and new entrant carriers immediately.
  Even under these changes, there will be an unlimited number of new 
slots on March 1, 2000, for regional jet aircraft. Even under those 
changes, there will be an unlimited number of new slots for all 
aircraft in the late afternoon and early evening on March 1, 2001. Even 
with the changes, there will be an unlimited number of new slots for 
all aircraft at all times on March 1, 2002. That is simply more than we 
ought to bear.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not very often I come to the floor and tell my 
colleagues that I hope I am wrong. Today I have that sad duty. I hope 
that I am wrong and there will not be an airline disaster at O'Hare. I 
hope that I am wrong and there will not be delays. I hope that I am 
wrong and there will not be more pollution and more noise in my 
district.
  Unfortunately, I fear that I am right. For that reason, I urge 
Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the ranking 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) 
control one-half of the time, or 10 minutes.
  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 rise in strong opposition to this amendment from my 
good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). The reason I must 
rise in opposition to this amendment from my very good friend is 
because slots are an anachronism. They were first imposed in 1969 
because air traffic control at that time could not handle increased 
traffic.
  Since then, the FAA has developed a flow system that meters the air 
traffic so controllers can handle it. This system is being further 
improved. At other busy airports around the country, Atlanta, Dallas, 
L.A., Boston, Newark, there are no slot controls. Some of these 
airports are busier and more congested and just as landlocked as slot-
controlled airports.
  There is no reason to continue slot controls. This bill phases out 
the slot rules in a timely and orderly fashion. In Chicago, slots are 
not eliminated until 2002. In New York, 2007, except for new regional 
jet service.
  There is no safety reason to keep the slot controls, and from the 
very same report that my good friend quoted from, let me quote from 
page 3: ``Changing the high-density rule will not affect air safety. 
Let me say it again, changing the high-density rule will not affect air 
safety.'' So it is not a safety issue any longer.
  The FAA administrator testified earlier this year, and of course the 
report that my good friend and I both have referred to is 4 years old, 
but the FAA administrator testified earlier this year that there is no 
safety reason for slot rules. The slot rules restrict competition and 
result in higher air fares by keeping out new airlines.
  I totally respect my friend's position in looking at it from a local 
perspective for his constituents. We have to look at this from a 
national perspective, and from the concern and the interest of air 
passengers all across America.

                              {time}  1930

  The slot rules hurt small and mid-sized communities in the East and 
the Midwest by blocking their access to Chicago and New York.
  The 1993 Presidential Commission recommended the elimination of the 
slot rules. In a March 1999 report, this year, not 4 years ago but this 
year, GAO found that the slot rules restrict competition and result in 
higher airfares, and all the new service allowed by the elimination of 
slot rules will have to be provided by the quiet stage 3 aircraft.
  Indeed, stage 3 aircraft is much more quiet. One stage 2 DC-10 makes 
as much noise as 9 new Boeing 777s. In fact, in 1975 there were 7 
million people who were exposed to 65 decibels or higher.
  In 1995, that figure is down to 1.7 million, and by 2000 that figure 
will be down to 600,000. So very, very substantial improvements are 
being made in noise reduction. Indeed in Air 21, we have $612 million 
for noise reduction as opposed to $246 million which was in the 
previous bill. So we are very mindful of the issue of noise, very 
mindful of the issue of safety and very mindful of the issue of the 
high costs which are imposed when one limits access to airports such as 
O'Hare and other airports.
  We need more competition. One of the ways to do it is by lifting the 
slot rules which were imposed 30 years ago in a different time. It is 
not realistic to expect the air traffic system to be frozen 
indefinitely in the face of the rising demand, especially when new 
service can be accommodated safely.
  For all of these reasons, I must with reluctance, out of respect for 
my dear friend, but nevertheless vigorously, oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my dear friend from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) that opposing a third airport is the way to stifle 
competition. God forbid we should have a third airport and open up more 
slots and more gates and invite other airlines in. American and United 
would not like that. So to say that my amendment hampers competition, 
no, my amendment is designed ultimately to get to a third airport which 
Chicago is going to have, whether we stand in the way or not, it has to 
have, but that is the way to eliminate competition.
  Now, anybody who says air density has no connection with safety never 
looks out the window as the plane is circling in bad weather. Believe 
me, the more flights that fill the air, if one does not think that 
creates a safety problem then I do not know what pilots they are 
talking to. O'Hare has 900,000 flights a year. It is the busiest 
airport in the United States, and to make it more busy may satisfy the 
balance sheet but I do not think it answers the human equation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Chicago, Mr. Jackson.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Morella amendment 
to address the high-density rule at hub airports that are essentially 
at capacity.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the nature of the 
problem here, I would say to the ranking member and to the chairman; 
not a rocket scientist at all. There are 875,000 take-offs and landings 
at the busiest airport in the world, 875,000 per year; at Midway 
Airport in the city of Chicago, 175,000 take-offs and landings every 
year. At operational capacity, O'Hare essentially reached it 6 years 
ago and now there is an effort afoot by this Congress, which this 
amendment fortunately stops, an effort afoot to add

[[Page 12906]]

more than 875,000 operations at O'Hare Airport every year; 875,000. The 
head of the FAA, Jane Garvey, has suggested that air transportation in 
the future, particularly in this region, will grow as much as a million 
additional operations at the O'Hare Airport and in the midwest region, 
1 million.
  Without that high-density rule, we are now trying to squeeze 
1,875,000 potential operations at O'Hare Airport, an airport that is 
incapable of handling the kinds of operations that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have been articulating for the last couple of 
hours today.
  So what is the airport doing to accommodate 875,000 operations? They 
are now cross-landing flights at O'Hare Airport. That is not half of 
it; cross-landing flights at O'Hare Airport at night. The pilots' union 
has objected to it, saying that it is dangerous.
  Most recently, maybe within the last year, year and a half or so ago, 
a British Airways flight was in the process of taking off, a 747 taking 
off on one runway, I believe it was 32 left, at O'Hare Airport; a 727 
was landing. They had approval to take off and land on cross-runways at 
the same time, and because the British Airways pilot saw it, he hit his 
brakes and blew out six tires because he realized that the 727 was 
incapable of stopping.
  We just implemented this cross-landing procedure at O'Hare Airport 
within the last 2 years to address the capacity problem, and so because 
smaller air flights are now being cancelled from rural Illinois and 
other parts of Illinois into O'Hare field, our effort now is to try our 
best to increase competition amongst the carriers by lifting the high-
density rule so that smaller aircraft can arrive at O'Hare Airport. It 
always works in the short run, but the high-density rule was 
specifically put in place for safety reasons, and that is critical and 
it is also very, very important. In particular, because when one looks 
at the reality that most of these routes are not as profitable for the 
larger carriers, once they get the slots they end up cancelling the 
small aircraft to smaller rural areas in favor of larger international 
flights and longer distance hubs. It keeps happening at O'Hare and that 
is why Archer Daniels Midland no longer has access to O'Hare Airport. 
That is why aircraft traveling directly from Moline, Illinois no longer 
have access to O'Hare Airport because the larger aircraft need the slot 
space, and that will not happen and be addressed until we balance this 
growth and build a third airport.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde-
Morella amendment that will strike section 201 access to high-density 
airports from H.R. 1000. I will focus today on the high-density airport 
of greatest interest to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and myself: Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
  The high-density rule was issued by the FAA in 1968 as a temporary, I 
repeat a temporary, measure to reduce delays at congested airports. The 
high-density rule was never designed for safety purposes. I will run 
that by once again. The high-density rule was never designed for safety 
purposes. In fact, on February 11, 1999, Jane Garvey, administrator of 
the FAA, testified before the Subcommittee on Aviation that there are 
no safety reasons for the high-density rule.
  In addition, facility representatives of the air traffic controllers 
working in O'Hare's tower wrote that the controllers support the 
elimination of the high-density rule and agree that O'Hare, and I 
quote, is capable of handling an increase in traffic without adversely 
affecting safety. Therefore, contrary to what others want us to 
believe, eliminating the high-density rule will in no way affect air 
safety.
  In fact, the FAA has sophisticated air traffic control programs and 
procedures in place to provide for safety.
  For example, the FAA's central flow control system limits air traffic 
to operational safety levels based on the capacity of runways and 
airports, and it is implemented independently of the limits of the 
high-density rule. Air traffic controllers will continue to apply these 
programs and procedures for providing safety, regardless of whether the 
high-density rule is in place or not. Simply put, the FAA will never 
put more planes in the air than the system could adequately handle, and 
eliminating the high-density rule is not going to change that fact. 
There are no safety reasons for the high-density rule.
  In addition, the high-density rule is no longer needed for its 
intended purpose of reducing delays and congestion. In fact, as a 
result of air traffic control improvements, congestion-related delays 
at O'Hare have decreased approximately 40 percent over the last decade 
as operations have increased. Unfortunately, O'Hare cannot fully 
benefit from all the improvements that enhance capacity and reduce 
delays. Although O'Hare could easily and efficiently handle an increase 
in air traffic, it cannot because of the artificial constraints of the 
high-density rule. In other words, the high-density rule does not 
reflect the capacity of O'Hare Airport but, rather, unnecessarily 
limits the capacity of the airport.
  As for the issue of noise, which I know my colleague from Illinois is 
very concerned about, the high-density rule does not really serve as a 
noise mitigation tool. In fact, one effect of the high-density rule has 
been to increase operations between 6:45 a.m. and after 9:15 p.m., the 
hours the slot rule is in effect, because aircraft do not need slots to 
operate at these times.
  Elimination of the high-density rule will actually reduce noise at 
night and in the early morning hours because airlines will have more 
scheduling flexibility to operate during the day.
  More importantly, in 2002 when the high-density rule is eliminated, 
only the quieter stage 3 aircraft will be able to serve O'Hare Airport. 
A 1995 study of the high-density rule by the Department of 
Transportation found that the removal of the high-density rule at 
O'Hare, in conjunction with the mandated phase-out of noisier stage 2 
aircraft by the year 2000, would shrink the number of people adversely 
impacted by noise near O'Hare from 112,349 in 1995 to 20,820 in 2005, a 
net decrease of 91,529.
  This is also supported by the City of Chicago's projected noise 
contour for O'Hare in the year 2000.
  It is clear that there is no real reason to keep the high-density 
rule in place. However, eliminating the high-density rule will provide 
immediate and substantial benefits. Today, very few new entrant 
carriers are able to serve O'Hare because it is extremely costly to 
either buy a slot or go through the political process of obtaining a 
slot exemption. Lifting the high-density rule will create new 
opportunities for new entrant airlines. This will increase competition 
and lower fares for consumers. Without slots, carriers will also have 
the scheduling flexibility to serve more destinations. In fact, 
carriers may be more inclined to serve small- and medium-sized 
communities because they will no longer have to worry about using their 
precious few slots on the most profitable routes. Eliminating the high-
density rule allows all airlines, big or small, new or old, to serve 
O'Hare Airport, giving consumers more choice, lower fares, and greater 
convenience.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde/Morella amendment. The 
Committee has already conceded to significant changes to Section 201, 
including delaying the elimination of the high-density rule at Chicago 
O'Hare to the year 2002. Let O'Hare Airport operate safely and 
efficiently like every other slot-free airport in the nation by 
opposing this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment 
would continue the practice of unnecessarily limiting the number of 
flights to and from O'Hare, Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Reagan National 
Airports.
  This is an anticonsumer amendment, an anticompetition, anti-free 
enterprise amendment.
  The slot rule has unfairly prevented new service by new entrant 
carriers at

[[Page 12907]]

these airports. New entrants are unable to secure enough slots during 
desirable peak periods to provide viable service.
  Furthermore, established air carriers are discouraged from serving 
small communities since it is most profitable to allocate their 
precious slots to routes that carry the most passengers.
  In some cases, airlines use the slot rule to protect their market 
dominance. At LaGuardia, carriers use smaller prop planes in jet slots 
to meet their usage requirements. This prevents the FAA from revoking 
their slots and giving them to competitors.
  According to the DOT study that has been mentioned already here, the 
elimination of the slots will reduce airfare and encourage new service. 
Consumer benefits would total at least $1.3 billion annually.

                              {time}  1945

  According to this study, airfares on flights through LaGuardia, 
Reagan National, and O'Hare would drop an average of 5 percent. This 
amendment, however, will go in the opposite direction, lead to higher 
fares, less service, and lose the $1.3 billion in consumer benefits the 
DOT study found are possible.
  The DOT found that the airports in New York and Chicago could easily 
accommodate many new flights every day. Planes, Mr. Chairman, are much 
quieter now than 30 years ago when slots were first imposed. Small and 
medium-sized communities would benefit most from these additional 
flights, receiving the access they need to these major markets.
  Contrary to some claims, lifting the restrictions will not adversely 
affect safety. The FAA has assured us on this. In fact, the 
administration's own FAA reauthorization bill also contained provisions 
to eliminate slot restrictions.
  Many large airlines do not use all of their slots that they presently 
have, and lifting slot restrictions would, I think, not lead to any 
noticeable increase in the actual number of flights. I oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a statement I made previously. I 
indicated previously that we had allocated $612 million for noise 
abatement. That was what was in our original bill. However, when we had 
to scale back the cost of the bill to conform with our agreement with 
the Speaker. One of the figures that was reduced was that, and it was 
reduced to $406 million. That is the accurate figure. It still is 
nearly twice as much as the previous legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Morella amendment 
which would strike the provisions in the bill that would eliminate the 
slot rule, the limitations on take-offs and landings at O'Hare, 
LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports, and would add six flights to Reagan 
National Airport.
  I urge my colleagues not to tamper with the slot rule at our Nation's 
high-density airports. In 1968, the slot rule was established as a 
solution from traffic congestion and delays at five high-density 
airports. Since that time, only Newark Airport has eliminated the slot 
rule, and Newark now has one of the highest rates of delays in the 
country.
  Eliminating the slot rule at Kennedy, LaGuardia, and O'Hare and 
adding flights to National means the traffic congestion will increase 
at these airports. Passengers will be the ones to suffer the 
frustrating delays.
  Over the years, the slot rule has evolved into a noise issue and a 
quality of life issue for citizens who live in the vicinity of the 
high-density airports. The existing slot rule at Reagan National 
Airport was a compact among Federal, local and airport officials. Its 
establishment by the Federal Aviation Administration was in response to 
the many appeals of citizens and local elected officials for relief 
from airport noise. Its preservation is essential to the promises that 
were made during the development of legislation, providing for the 
transfer of National and Dulles Airports from FAA control to the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
  Any attempts to alter the slot rule would be a breach of the good 
faith agreement between the FAA and the local community. Changes in the 
slot rule would destroy years of hard work by citizens, Members of 
Congress, the Washington regional government, and airport officials to 
provide genuine relief to the surrounding communities that are impacted 
by airport noise.
  Limiting flights in and out of airports is an effective way to cut 
down on airport noise. I happened to notice in the Congressional Record 
that another bill, the National Parks Overflights Act, would manage and 
limit commercial air tour flights over and around national parks. The 
rationale behind this measure is that visitors to our national parks 
deserve a safe and quality visitor experience. `Natural quiet,' or the 
ambient sounds of the environment without the intrusion of manmade 
noise, is a highly valued resource for visitors to our national parks. 
As commercial air tour flights increase, their noise also increases, 
and this increase in noise could hinder the opportunity for visitors on 
the ground to enjoy the natural quiet of the park.
  In many ways, the District of Columbia is like a national park. 
Millions of tourists flock here each year to visit the monuments, the 
White House, the Smithsonian, and the Capitol. Anyone who has spent a 
solemn moment in front of the Vietnam Memorial knows that their 
solemnity is constantly interrupted by noisy overflights. The District 
is our Nation's Capitol, and we have every responsibility to protect 
the quiet and safety of our visitors who want to savor the history of 
our national city in a peaceful setting.
  What about safety? According to pilots, Reagan National is not the 
easiest place to land a jumbo jet full of passengers. Even the most 
seasoned pilots admit it is hard to maneuver over a densely populated 
area and four major bridges while avoiding the White House airspace and 
all five of the Pentagon's rooflines.
  Last year, I repeatedly pressed the FAA to respond expeditiously to 
the rash of radar outages that plagued the National Airport just after 
the opening of its new terminal. Recently, I was informed by the FAA 
that they are having trouble with their radar computer replacement 
system called STARS, and, consequently, they are going to install an 
interim software system until STARS is ready.
  According to Richard Swauger, national technology coordinator of the 
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, that interim software 
system is slower. Does it make sense to add more flights at the high-
density airports when the FAA's new, but slower, interim system will 
most likely increase delays for airline passengers?
  Well, additional flights at our high-density airports will increase 
delays. I think it will impair safety and increase noise. The rules 
governing the use of the high-density airport should be left to the 
purview of the local authorities and the surrounding local 
jurisdictions, not the U.S. Congress and the Federal Government. Only 
1.2 percent of the Nation's air travelers use Reagan National Airport. 
It is highly doubtful that the added slots, which has only one runway 
and is in the center of a densely populated area, will increase 
competition and create lower prices.
  So I certainly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Hyde-Morella 
amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 5 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me set the stage for this issue. We have a national aviation 
system, not a collection of individual airports around America. We have 
a national integrated system of airports. Aviation depends on all of 
them functioning together. They are linked by the FAA

[[Page 12908]]

with the full control center out at Herndon so that at times of stress, 
as we had yesterday, when there are weather patterns moving around the 
country, that central flow control can coordinate among all those 
airports and prevent aircraft from congregating in areas where they may 
be exposed to unacceptable levels of weather and, therefore, delays and 
possible accidents.
  We have large hubs, medium hubs, small hubs, general aviation 
airports, reliever airports. The 29 large hubs in America account for 
67 percent of all passenger boardings in this country. O'Hare is the 
largest of the hubs. It is not just the largest, it is the largest in 
the world, the largest airport, the most important airport in the 
world.
  Without O'Hare, small towns like Des Moines, Iowa, find their 
business community drying up. If they cannot get into O'Hare, they 
cannot conduct business. Small towns like Duluth, Minnesota, need 
access to O'Hare Airport. We have to be able to access our business 
community to that marketplace.
  Why is O'Hare important? Because Chicago is the hub of mid-America, 
agriculture, business, jobs, exports. Within 300 miles of O'Hare are 40 
percent of all of America's exports. Within 500 miles of O'Hare is 45 
percent of the Nation's agriculture. To be competitive in the Nation's 
and the world's marketplace, one needs access to O'Hare.
  Eight years ago, I worked with my dear friend for whom I have 
enormous respect for the courage and leadership that he has taken on 
the right to life issue, and we made right to less noise an issue. We 
have got this country on a downward spiral on noise. From 7\1/2\ 
million people 9 years ago, or 8 years ago, exposed to unacceptable 
levels of noise, we will be down to 115,000 all over America; 115,000 
total. That is all. We have got all aircraft in the Nation's fleet down 
to Stage 3.
  Now, what about this high density rule? It was imposed because FAA in 
the 1960s could not manage the traffic. Today they have the air traffic 
control tools to manage that traffic. I have met several times with the 
career professional chief of air traffic control at the O'Hare TRACON; 
that is the terminal radar control facility which manages approach 
control.
  ``We will never allow safety to be compromised,'' he said. ``We will 
hold to the 100 per hour arrival rate. We can do better throughout the 
day. We can distribute those aircraft throughout the day on a better 
basis and accommodate more communities, but we will never allow safety 
to be compromised.''
  That is the real issue here. Secretary Slater has said the high 
density rule was never designed for safety purposes. Administrator 
Garvey of the FAA, says, ``There are no safety reasons for continuing 
to maintain the high density rule. There are no competitive reasons for 
maintaining the high density. We will increase competition without 
necessarily increasing unacceptable levels of noise,'' as the gentleman 
rightly is concerned about, but we will increase competition.
  Why should airlines that received free the right to serve O'Hare, 
LaGuardia, Kennedy, National Airport, received that free, have been 
permitted to convert a public good into a private right with value that 
they can now sell for as much as a million dollars apiece for arrival 
and departure? That is unacceptable.
  If I had my way, we would eliminate the high density as of the 
enactment of this legislation, but we are accommodating people all 
across this country, accommodating various interests and various 
concerns and doing it in a fair way.
  This amendment is unnecessary. It is unwise. It is counter to 
competition, counter to fairness, and counter to those people who wish 
to be protected from noise. We should defeat this amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
allowing me this opportunity to speak on this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this measure, and I also 
would like to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 
for her leadership as well.
  This is not just about competition. This is not just about economic 
interests. This is also about people and neighborhoods and livability. 
It is about noise.
  One of the issues that I want to talk about is the increased level of 
noise associated with increased flights. Lest my colleagues think this 
is an all-Illinois battle, I hasten to add that Reagan National Airport 
impacts the citizens of my district along the Potomac in Maryland. We 
are already in negotiations with the FAA over the noise problem 
affecting my constituents.
  Now, we understand that we have to have flights, and we understand 
that commerce must continue, but it seems to me that there ought to be 
a reasonable balance and a fair consideration given to the concerns of 
Joe Citizen. What the citizens are saying is that they cannot enjoy 
their homes because of frequent flights. They cannot enjoy their homes 
because of cracked walls due to airport noise. They cannot enjoy their 
homes when their furniture and their artifacts rattle across the dining 
room table.
  What they are saying to us is we need to control the increase of air 
flights coming into their community. That is what this amendment does. 
It enables us to consider the interests of the average citizen as we 
determine our national policy.
  Reagan National Airport is unique. Unlike many airports that are far 
outside the city limits, those of us in Congress, of course, know 
Reagan National Airport is practically in Washington. That is how we 
make our flights home, those of us who have to leave. That means that 
it impacts a lot of communities. To add additional flights to this 
airport is particularly onerous because it affects citizens of the 
District, citizens from northern Virginia, citizens in Maryland, and it 
affects them in an unfair way that is not necessary.
  We have a reasonable balance under the existing law. We ought to 
maintain that and continue to work to take into consideration the 
interests of Joe Citizen.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My colleagues, when the good Lord makes more airspace over O'Hare 
Field, then we can have more flights in there. But when there are more 
flights, we use up the space, we use up the air, we use up the ground, 
and there is not any more.
  We are already the busiest airport in the world. We get some pretty 
bad weather in Chicago, and by stuffing or shoveling more flights into 
O'Hare, we create lots of problems for my constituents and for 
everybody that is flying around the country, because those backups and 
delays are going to radiate and ripple out.
  I ask my colleagues to consider safety, to consider noise, to 
consider pollution, and to consider the status quo, which is serving us 
well, until we build more airports and more capacity. We are not doing 
that now and we should not add more flights.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I would simply say, in closing, that I have enormous respect for my 
friend from Illinois. I understand he is representing well his 
constituency. But on our committee we must take the view of what is 
best for the entire Nation, and on that basis we must oppose the 
amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All debate time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The amendment was rejected.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

[[Page 12909]]


  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
demand for a recorded vote on the Moran amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The demand for a recorded vote is withdrawn.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Calvert) 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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 206, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 316, 
noes 110, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--110

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (FL)
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Farr
     Foley
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Lowey
     Luther
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Gordon
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Lewis (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2028

  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, LUTHER, EVERETT, and Mrs. LOWEY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PICKERING, McKEON, FLETCHER, and Ms. GRANGER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 209, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________