[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12241-12246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           AIRPORT STREAMLINING APPROVAL PROCESS ACT OF 2002

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4481) to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to airport 
project streamlining, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4481

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Streamlining 
     Approval Process Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) airports play a major role in interstate and foreign 
     commerce;
       (2) congestion and delays at our Nation's major airports 
     have a significant negative impact on our Nation's economy;
       (3) airport capacity enhancement projects at congested 
     airports are a national priority and should be constructed on 
     an expedited basis;
       (4) airport capacity enhancement projects must include an 
     environmental review process that provides local citizenry an 
     opportunity for consideration of and appropriate action to 
     address environmental concerns; and
       (5) the Federal Aviation Administration, airport 
     authorities, communities, and other Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies must work together to develop a plan, set 
     and honor milestones and deadlines, and work to protect the 
     environment while sustaining the economic vitality that will 
     result from the continued growth of aviation.

     SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF NEW RUNWAYS.

       Section 40104 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Airport Capacity Enhancement Projects at Congested 
     Airports.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator 
     shall take action to encourage the construction of airport 
     capacity enhancement projects at congested airports as those 
     terms are defined in section 47179.''.

     SEC. 4. AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 47153 the 
     following:

             ``SUBCHAPTER III--AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING

     ``Sec. 47171. DOT as lead agency

       ``(a) Airport Project Review Process.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall develop and implement a coordinated 
     review process for airport capacity enhancement projects at 
     congested airports.
       ``(b) Coordinated Reviews.--The coordinated review process 
     under this section shall provide that all environmental 
     reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals 
     that must be issued or made by a Federal agency or airport 
     sponsor for an airport capacity enhancement project at a 
     congested airport will be conducted concurrently, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, and completed within a time 
     period established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     agencies identified under subsection (c) with respect to the 
     project.
       ``(c) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With 
     respect to each airport capacity enhancement project at a 
     congested airport, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as 
     practicable, all Federal and State agencies that may have 
     jurisdiction over environmental-related matters that may be 
     affected by the project or may be required by law to conduct 
     an environmental-related review or analysis of the project or 
     determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, 
     license, or approval for the project.
       ``(d) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is 
     being implemented under this section by the Secretary with 
     respect to a project at an airport within the boundaries of a 
     State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to 
     participate in such process and provide that all State 
     agencies that have jurisdiction over environmental-related 
     matters that may be affected by the project or may be 
     required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or 
     analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an 
     environmental-related permit, license, or approval for the 
     project, be subject to the process.
       ``(e) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review 
     process developed under this section may be incorporated into 
     a memorandum of understanding for a project between the 
     Secretary and the heads of other Federal and State agencies 
     identified under subsection (c) with respect to the project 
     and the airport sponsor.
       ``(f) Effect of Failure To Meet Deadline.--
       ``(1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a Federal agency, State agency, or airport 
     sponsor that is participating in a coordinated review process 
     under this section with respect to a project has not met a 
     deadline established under subsection (b) for the project, 
     the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of 
     such determination, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the 
     Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency or sponsor 
     involved about the failure to meet the deadline.
       ``(2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after date of 
     receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the agency or 
     sponsor involved shall submit a report to the Secretary, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality explaining why the agency or sponsor 
     did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take 
     to

[[Page 12242]]

     complete or issue the required review, analysis, opinion, 
     license, or approval.
       ``(g) Purpose and Need.--For any environmental review, 
     analysis, opinion, permit, license, or approval that must be 
     issued or made by a Federal or State agency that is 
     participating in a coordinated review process under this 
     section with respect to an airport capacity enhancement 
     project at a congested airport and that requires an analysis 
     of purpose and need for the project, the agency, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall be bound by 
     the project purpose and need as defined by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Alternatives Analysis.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the reasonable alternatives to an airport capacity 
     enhancement project at a congested airport. Any other Federal 
     or State agency that is participating in a coordinated review 
     process under this section with respect to the project shall 
     consider only those alternatives to the project that the 
     Secretary has determined are reasonable.
       ``(i) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In 
     applying subsections (g) and (h), the Secretary shall solicit 
     and consider comments from interested persons and 
     governmental entities.

     ``Sec. 47172. Categorical exclusions

       ``Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall develop 
     and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the 
     requirement that an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement be prepared under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     projects at airports.

     ``Sec. 47173. Access restrictions to ease construction

       ``At the request of an airport sponsor for a congested 
     airport, the Secretary of Transportation may approve a 
     restriction on use of a runway to be constructed at the 
     airport to minimize potentially significant adverse noise 
     impacts from the runway only if the Secretary determines that 
     imposition of the restriction--
       ``(1) is necessary to mitigate those impacts and expedite 
     construction of the runway;
       ``(2) is the most appropriate and a cost-effective measure 
     to mitigate those impacts, taking into consideration any 
     environmental tradeoffs associated with the restriction; and
       ``(3) would not adversely affect service to small 
     communities, adversely affect safety or efficiency of the 
     national airspace system, unjustly discriminate against any 
     class of user of the airport, or impose an undue burden on 
     interstate or foreign commerce.

     ``Sec. 47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 47107(b), 
     section 47133, or any other provision of this title, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may allow an airport sponsor 
     carrying out an airport capacity enhancement project at a 
     congested airport to make payments, out of revenues generated 
     at the airport (including local taxes on aviation fuel), for 
     measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project 
     if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the mitigation measures are included as part of, or 
     are consistent with, the preferred alternative for the 
     project in the documentation prepared pursuant to the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.);
       ``(2) the use of such revenues will provide a significant 
     incentive for, or remove an impediment to, approval of the 
     project by a State or local government; and
       ``(3) the cost of the mitigation measures is reasonable in 
     relation to the mitigation that will be achieved.
       ``(b) Mitigation of Aircraft Noise.--Mitigation measures 
     described in subsection (a) may include the insulation of 
     residential buildings and buildings used primarily for 
     educational or medical purposes to mitigate the effects of 
     aircraft noise and the improvement of such buildings as 
     required for the insulation of the buildings under local 
     building codes.

     ``Sec. 47175. Airport funding of FAA staff

       ``(a) Acceptance of Sponsor-Provided Funds.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration may accept funds from 
     an airport sponsor, including funds provided to the sponsor 
     under section 47114(c), to hire additional staff or obtain 
     the services of consultants in order to facilitate the timely 
     processing, review, and completion of environmental 
     activities associated with an airport development project.
       ``(b) Administrative Provision.--Instead of payment from an 
     airport sponsor from funds apportioned to the sponsor under 
     section 47114, the Administrator, with agreement of the 
     sponsor, may transfer funds that would otherwise be 
     apportioned to the sponsor under section 47114 to the account 
     used by the Administrator for activities described in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Receipts Credited as Offsetting Collections.--
     Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any funds accepted 
     under this section, except funds transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (b)--
       ``(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the 
     account that finances the activities and services for which 
     the funds are accepted;
       ``(2) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the 
     costs of activities and services for which the funds are 
     accepted; and
       ``(3) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(d) Maintenance of Effort.--No funds may be accepted 
     pursuant to subsection (a), or transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (b), in any fiscal year in which the Federal 
     Aviation Administration does not allocate at least the amount 
     it expended in fiscal year 2002, excluding amounts accepted 
     pursuant to section 337 of the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 
     862), for the activities described in subsection (a).

     ``Sec. 47176. Authorization of appropriations

       ``In addition to the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 106(k), there is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation, out of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund established under section 9502 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502), $2,100,000 
     for fiscal year 2003 and $4,200,000 for each fiscal year 
     thereafter to facilitate the timely processing, review, and 
     completion of environmental activities associated with 
     airport capacity enhancement projects at congested airports.

     ``Sec. 47177. Judicial review

       ``(a) Filing and Venue.--A person disclosing a substantial 
     interest in an order issued by the Secretary of 
     Transportation or the head of any other Federal agency under 
     this part or a person or agency relying on any determination 
     made under this part may apply for review of the order by 
     filing a petition for review in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court 
     of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the 
     person resides or has its principal place of business. The 
     petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order 
     is issued. The court may allow the petition to be filed after 
     the 60th day only if there are reasonable grounds for not 
     filing by the 60th day.
       ``(b) Judicial Procedures.--When a petition is filed under 
     subsection (a) of this section, the clerk of the court 
     immediately shall send a copy of the petition to the 
     Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency involved. 
     The Secretary or the head of such other agency shall file 
     with the court a record of any proceeding in which the order 
     was issued.
       ``(c) Authority of Court.--When the petition is sent to the 
     Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency involved, 
     the court has exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, 
     modify, or set aside any part of the order and may order the 
     Secretary or the head of such other agency to conduct further 
     proceedings. After reasonable notice to the Secretary or the 
     head of such other agency, the court may grant interim relief 
     by staying the order or taking other appropriate action when 
     good cause for its action exists. Findings of fact by the 
     Secretary or the head of such other agency are conclusive if 
     supported by substantial evidence.
       ``(d) Requirement for Prior Objection.--In reviewing an 
     order of the Secretary or the head of any other Federal 
     agency under this section, the court may consider an 
     objection to the action of the Secretary or the head of such 
     other agency only if the objection was made in the proceeding 
     conducted by the Secretary or the head of such other agency 
     or if there was a reasonable ground for not making the 
     objection in the proceeding.
       ``(e) Supreme Court Review.--A decision by a court under 
     this section may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court under 
     section 1254 of title 28.
       ``(f) Order Defined.--In this section, the term `order' 
     includes a record of decision or a finding of no significant 
     impact.

     ``Sec. 47178. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Airport sponsor.--The term `airport sponsor' has the 
     meaning given the term `sponsor' under section 47102.
       ``(2) Congested airport.--The term `congested airport' 
     means an airport that accounted for at least 1 percent of all 
     delayed aircraft operations in the United States in the most 
     recent year for which such data is available and an airport 
     listed in table 1 of the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001.
       ``(3) Airport capacity enhancement project.--The term 
     `airport capacity enhancement project' means--
       ``(A) a project for construction or extension of a runway, 
     including any land acquisition, taxiway, or safety area 
     associated with the runway or runway extension; and
       ``(B) such other airport development projects as the 
     Secretary may designate as facilitating a reduction in air 
     traffic congestion and delays.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

             ``SUBCHAPTER III--AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING

``47171. DOT as lead agency.
``47172. Categorical exclusions.
``47173. Access restrictions to ease construction.
``47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation.
``47175. Airport funding of FAA staff.

[[Page 12243]]

``47176. Authorization of appropriations.
``47177. Judicial review.
``47178. Definitions.''.

     SEC. 5. GOVERNOR'S CERTIFICATE.

       Section 47106(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii);
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``stage 2'' and 
     inserting ``stage 3'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).

     SEC. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN AIRPORT CAPACITY PROJECTS.

       Section 47504(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) to an airport operator of a congested airport (as 
     defined in section 47178) and a unit of local government 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) of this subsection 
     to carry out a project to mitigate noise in the area 
     surrounding the airport if the project is included as a 
     commitment in a record of decision of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for an airport capacity enhancement project 
     (as defined in section 47178) even if that airport has not 
     met the requirements of part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS.

       Nothing in this Act, including any amendment made by this 
     Act, shall preempt or interfere with--
       (1) any practice of seeking public comment; and
       (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority of a State agency 
     or an airport sponsor has with respect to carrying out an 
     airport capacity enhancement project.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, air travel in the United States 
has grown faster than any other mode of transportation. More and more, 
our citizens rely on the speed and the convenience of flights in 
aviation to improve our daily lives. Unfortunately, we, as a nation, 
have failed to provide the airport capacity necessary to keep pace with 
the great demand that we have seen grow over the past decades.
  Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration released a report 
which revealed for the first time how very far we have fallen behind in 
meeting our aviation infrastructure needs. According to the report, our 
Nation's 31 busiest airports are now at or above capacity for some 
portion of the day.
  Insufficient airport runway capacity has led to chronic and worsening 
congestion. Last summer, and before the events of September 11, one out 
of every four commercial flights experienced a significant delay or 
cancellation. As air travelers begin to regain confidence in our 
system, we have already seen the return of traffic in aviation 
commercial passenger service to pre-September 11 levels.
  It is not a question of when, Mr. Speaker, or even if; it is a 
question of how soon gridlock will return to our busiest airports, and 
we are already seeing that occur. Airports around the Nation must now 
begin to address the capacity needs that we have seen in the past 
immediately. We have a little bit of a break here again in regaining 
our passenger service that we had pre-September 11, so it gives us an 
opportunity to plan, to prepare, and to meet the aviation 
infrastructure needs of the future.
  Unfortunately, standing in the way of moving forward with building 
our Nation's aviation infrastructure is a very cumbersome Federal 
review process. That process is full of duplication, it is full of 
conflicting mandates, and one that, in fact, lacks coordination, lacks 
accountability, and sometimes wastes years and years of precious time 
when communities and States are trying to work with the Federal 
Government to build the aviation infrastructure that our economy and 
our areas need so desperately.
  The legislation before us today, H.R. 4481, I believe, will 
significantly improve the Federal review process for critical airport 
capacity projects that are under consideration at 31 of our Nation's 
busiest airports. While this legislation will cut through red tape, it 
will not in any way diminish existing environmental laws or in any way 
limit local input or control over these critical projects.
  I know some Members have expressed concern that when we streamline, 
we do not want to streamline over local authority and we do not want to 
streamline over environmental laws that protect the beautiful landscape 
that we live in and enjoy. So those two features in this legislation 
that people are concerned about do not exist. We do not harm the 
environment, nor do we run over local authority.
  The way this legislation is drafted, it will ensure that once a 
community has reached a consensus on a critical capacity project, the 
review process will not unnecessarily delay construction. This bill, in 
fact, creates a coordinated review process for our major airport 
capacity projects across the country. It also gives the Secretary of 
Transportation the responsibility to ensure that all environmental 
reviews by all government agencies will be conducted at the same time 
whenever possible, and completed within the deadlines established by 
the Department of Transportation.
  H.R. 4481 also binds all Federal and State agencies taking part in a 
review to the project's ``purpose and need'' as determined by the 
Department of Transportation under this legislation. It also limits 
Federal or State agency reviews to the project alternatives that the 
Secretary of the Department determines are reasonable.

                              {time}  1230

  Finally, this bill also expedites judicial reviews of Department of 
Transportation determinations. It moves all claims to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals and requires all petitions to be filed not later than 60 days 
after an order is issued with allowances, of course, for special 
circumstances.
  I would like to reiterate that nothing in this bill is intended to 
cut off debate or limit input on the local level in any way. It does 
not usurp the rights or responsibilities of a State or airport sponsor 
to carry out an airport project.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent piece of legislation. We have 
worked together closely with the minority. Both sides of the aisle have 
been consulted, and we have worked with local and State governments and 
other stakeholders in this important process; and I think we have a 
good consensus on an excellent piece of legislation. I urge Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation pending before us, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) has just described has as its purpose to speed up 
construction of runways, taxiways, airside improvements at airports 
that have dragged on far too long in the past.
  Perhaps the most egregious example or comparison would be that of the 
Chek Lap Kok Airport in Hong Kong, an airport built in the ocean in 300 
meters of ocean depth, 12,500 feet runways, a 23-mile rail-truck 
highway link to downtown Kowloon, a terminal to handle 90,000 
passengers, started at the same time as the third runway at Seattle.
  Chek Lap Kok has been completed at a cost of over $25 billion, is now 
handling 15 to 20 million passengers a year; and I was out in Seattle a 
year ago for the bulldozing of the first load of dirt to start work on 
the third Seattle runway. Now, that is an egregious example, as I said; 
but it is one that underscores the frustration that airport 
authorities, airlines, and air traveling passengers have with our 
airport expansion program.
  If we are going to accommodate the more than 1 billion passengers to 
use the U.S. airways in the next 5 to 10 years, then we have to do a 
better job of moving airport projects along to enhance and expand 
capacity.
  But it is misleading to say that environmental issues alone are the 
factors causing 10- to 15-year delays in building runways. The FAA 
reviewed the

[[Page 12244]]

runway construction process, studied a number of major construction 
projects which have been described as taking 10 to 15 years to 
complete, and found generally that the Federal environmental impact 
process took 3 to 4 years. Now, that certainly is in the view of many 
people too long, but it is not 15 years. The major cause when we look 
at the facts more closely as reported by FAA, the major cause of delay 
is the time needed to complete the local political process mandated by 
State law and local ordinance.
  Under our system, as distinguished from many other places and most 
other countries in the world, it is not the Federal Government that 
decides to build an airport, except in the case of Dulles or Reagan 
National Airport, which are the only two owned by the Federal 
Government. It is the local government that makes that decision. Once 
they have, the Federal process comes into play.
  I think that we should speed up the environmental process by doing a 
great deal of the work concurrently, and coordinate State and Federal 
approvals; but each proposal has to be evaluated on its own and on 
itself. We have to be careful that we are only streamlining 
environmental processes, not superseding them.
  There are many positive provisions in this bill that will move the 
process along without undermining the National Environmental Policy 
Act. There is a procedure for DOT to take the lead in a cooperative 
initiative where all the State and Federal agencies that have 
environmental responsibilities agree to deadlines, agree to coordinate 
their review, and to do those reviews concurrently rather than 
sequentially. That would be a very big improvement on the existing 
process. I think that is a strong and constructive initiative that we 
have brought forward.
  There is also more flexibility in this legislation to address local 
community concerns by allowing restrictions on use of new runways, use 
of Federal airport funds for environmental mitigation, and allow FAA to 
accept money from airports to hire additional staff to process the 
environmental reviews more expeditiously. I think that is constructive.
  If these reasonable, responsible, thoughtfully constructed steps are 
followed, the environmental process will not be preempted. It will be 
speeded up, and the environmental will not take a bad rap in the name 
of efficiency or expeditious movement of airport construction process.
  On the whole we have a good bill, a reasonable one that properly 
managed will move our airport expansion needs ahead in a responsible 
manner. I think it will go a long way toward accelerating the 
environmental process without sacrificing environmental processes. I 
commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the extensive 
cooperation that we have had on this legislation, and the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for his 
thoughtful consideration of the views that we have offered on our side; 
and I also commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his 
dedicated work over many hours on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the words that have 
been said by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  This legislation will not change everything overnight, but it will 
expedite the process of building airports, we think, in a more 
expeditious time period. As the gentleman mentioned, the airports built 
in the Asian market were built in a short period of time, and Seattle 
has had 19 years and has not even flown an airplane off the new runway 
that is going to be built.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is needed at this time. Prior to 9-11, the 
biggest complaint was congestion and delays in our airports. I believe 
although air traffic is down now, it will return in the near future; 
and we need these new airports as our population grows. We need these 
new airports as commerce grows, and this is a way to get these airports 
built on time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining 
Approval Process Act of 2002.
  I am pleased to be moving forward with this legislation. Last year, 
airport gridlock dominated the aviation debate. Passengers were 
bitterly complaining about the intolerable delays they were forced to 
endure. We examined those issues and found that one of the main reasons 
for the congestion was the lack of airport capacity.
  There was a crying need for new runways and improved airport 
infrastructure. Air-21 provided the funding for these improvements, but 
bureaucratic red tape often held up needed construction. Now attention 
has shifted to airport security, and rightly so. Air traffic is down 
and the need for airport capacity improvements is less compelling. But, 
I am confident that air traffic will pick up again. And when it does, 
congestion and delays will return with a vengeance unless we do 
something about it now. That is why I introduced this bill. This 
legislation directs the Department of Transportation to take a lead 
role in the environmental review process.
  DOT will coordinate the actions of other agencies and will be 
responsible for determining the ``purpose and need'' and reasonable 
alternative to the project. I do not claim that this bill will build 
new runways overnight, but it will streamline the process and help 
airports meet the demands of air travelers more quickly. And, it should 
be noted, it will do this without undermining the environmental laws or 
the ability of citizens to have their voices heard in the process.
  I would like to thank chairman Mica, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. 
Lipinski, for their help and cooperation on this legislation. There 
were some difficult issues in this bill and I very much appreciate the 
bipartisan approach to resolving them.
  I urge a yes vote on H.R. 4481.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) for yielding me this time and express my sincere appreciation 
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) for the outstanding cooperation that we have on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is a pleasure to 
work with these gentlemen because they always strive to do what is best 
for the American flying public.
  Mr. Speaker, I lend my support to H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining 
Approval Process Act. In the true fashion of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, this is a bipartisan measure that 
will expedite the environmental review and approval process for key 
airport capacity projects.
  In the last decade, only six of our Nation's largest airports have 
managed to complete new runway projects, as it currently takes about 10 
years or more to simply plan and approve such a project. And as we are 
about to reach pre-September 11 traffic, and will eventually pass these 
levels, we need to streamline and speed up the environmental review 
process in order to lessen the aviation congestion that plagues our 
Nation and the world. H.R. 4481 will eliminate duplication without 
cutting corners that might harm the environment. Simply put, once a 
community reaches consensus on an airport capacity project and the 
environmental review has been finished, construction can begin in a 
timely fashion.
  In closing, I urge Members to support this measure that will help 
lessen the worsening aviation capacity crunch that we are facing in 
this Nation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the previous chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, one of the current Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure chairmen.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to salute and commend the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman

[[Page 12245]]

from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking members, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), for bringing this bill to the floor today.
  The lack of publicity about this legislation should not be any 
reflection on its importance because I consider this to be very, very 
important legislation. In previous Congresses, we held a couple of 
hearings about this problem, and we heard testimony that the average 
time of completion of a runway project in this country was 
approximately 10 years. In fact, we heard one witness tell us that the 
main runway at the Atlanta airport took 14 years from conception to 
completion, but only 33 days, those were 24-hour workdays, so we could 
say 99 working days of actual construction. That is ridiculous, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We also heard testimony that these delays are primarily due to 
environmental rules and regulations and red tape, and it was driving 
the cost of these projects up so they were costing three or four times 
what they should. Those costs had to be passed on to the flying public. 
What this has done over the years, it has driven up the cost of air 
travel. It has forced many lower-income people back onto the highways, 
or made sure that they stayed on the highways instead of having the 
much safer and quicker and more comfortable alternative of flying.
  This is very important legislation. We passed in the last Congress 
the AIR-21 bill, which was the largest aviation bill in the history of 
the Congress; but we certainly will not be able to gain the full 
benefits of the AIR-21 legislation unless we pass this legislation to 
complement and improve that earlier bill. This will help taxpayers 
receive the greatest bang for their buck on these aviation projects and 
will greatly improve and hold down the cost of air travel in the 
future. I think it is a very good bill, and I commend the authors and 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed a number of documents in the form of 
letters or memos issued just on the eve of the consideration of this 
legislation, and I want to make four points to reassure those who have 
expressed concerns about the effects of this bill on environmental 
procedures.
  One, the bill specifically provides there is no preemption or 
interference with any practice of seeking public comment or the 
authority of States or the authority of airport operators to decide on 
which projects they wish to undertake.
  Two, the bill does not give any new authority to the FAA to create 
exemptions from the environmental requirements.
  Three, States have a choice of whether they want to participate in a 
coordinated process.
  Four, if another agency does not comply with the coordinated schedule 
developed by DOT, the other agency does not lose its authority. It does 
have a remedy, a report to Congress.
  I think on balance we have taken into consideration the concerns 
expressed in the course of the hearing and subsequently about the 
effects of this legislation on environmental processes, and I urge the 
adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, again, I want to thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his cooperation and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, for his kind assistance.
  This legislation is authored by the chair of our full committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and it is cooperation 
of this nature that allows us to move important legislation forward. 
Although again not very newsworthy or legislation which brings on a 
great deal of debate and controversy in the House, today we are passing 
a significant measure which will allow airport streamlining for the 
approval process that is so important.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill saves time and this legislation 
saves money. This legislation maintains our protections, important 
protections over the environment, and this legislation maintains 
important local and State control and authority.
  I believe it is important to move this legislation forward because it 
does move our aviation infrastructure projects which are so necessary 
across the country and particularly in our congested regions of the 
Nation, and also this is important because it will move our economy 
forward, which we know is so dependent on aviation and aviation 
infrastructure.
  So, with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this 
legislation and support for H.R. 4481.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put on record my concerns 
regarding the Airport Streamling Approval Process Act of 2002 currently 
under discussion in the House.
  No one can quarrel with the concept of coordinating the extensive 
environmental review process required for major infrastructure projects 
such as the airport construction. Major transportation, education, 
energy, and other essential infrastructure projects warrant expedited 
environmental review, as long as the review is thorough and complete. 
However, it is critical that the same standards of review be used for 
all such projects. In Northern California there is a very controversial 
and disputed proposal to expand the runways at San Francisco 
International Airport by filling in approximately one square mile of 
San Francisco Bay. For the last several years, I have impressed upon 
federal and state officials the importance of analyzing this proposal 
from the perspective of meeting the long-term challenges facing 
commercial aviation throughout Northern California.
  The runway expansion and Bay fill proposal is seen as a solution to 
the problem of too much air traffic and air traffic delays at SFO. But, 
this solution will only compound the problem of traffic gridlock on our 
existing freeway and highway system to and from the airport. The 
permanent damage to San Francisco Bay caused by the Bay fill would only 
relieve aviation congestion problems on a temporary basis, it does 
nothing to address the larger issue of moving people and goods 
throughout California in the most reasonable, efficient, and 
environmentally prudent manner. In fact, it makes this challenge more 
difficult.
  As we discuss expedited review by the Federal Government of major 
projects such as the San Francisco Bay fill/airport expansion proposal, 
we must be mindful of thoroughly reviewing all alternatives. In the 
case of San Francisco, have we considered the use of existing, under-
utilized or abandoned aviation facilities in the San Francisco/Northern 
California region as an alternative to filling the Bay? Do the 
increased security concerns resulting from September 11 support such an 
expansion or would it be more prudent to improve other regional 
facilities? Has consideration been given to segregating SFO in terms of 
limiting or eliminating air cargo operations at that facility in order 
to maximize passenger aviation opportunities?
  I have long suggested the Federal Government coordinate its review of 
all major projects in order to have a timely resolution and avoid 
endless litigation and delay. Our policies in this area, however, must 
be consistent and exercised with fairness, and the review must be 
thorough.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the 
Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002, which continues this 
Congress' focus toward the expansion of airports and ignores the 
quality of life issue forced on many of our constituents who live near 
airports--aircraft noise.
  I fully recognize the vital role the aviation industry plays in our 
nation's economy, but it is time for this congress to stop focusing 
solely on what's good for the airport industry and to start focusing on 
what's also good for the countless individuals who live near airports 
and are constantly subjected to the thunderous roar of giants jets 
overhead.
  While this measure does include provisions that address aircraft 
noise, I firmly believe that those steps are inadequate and do not 
properly address the issue of aircraft noise. Instead of addressing 
legislation seeking solely to expand this nation's airports, this 
Congress should also focus its attention on legislation that eliminates 
aircraft noise. One measure I have introduced would ban the two loudest 
types of airplane engines from all general aviation airports in the 20 
largest metropolitan areas in the country. It is time that we shift our 
attention away from solely the expansion of airports and toward the 
problem of aircraft

[[Page 12246]]

noise which hampers the quality of life for countless American 
citizens.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4481, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________