[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18150-18151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2115, FLIGHT 100--CENTURY OF AVIATION 
                          REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States 
Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, 
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. DeFazio moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2115 be 
     instructed to insist upon a total level of funding of not 
     less than $59,000,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 
     for programs authorized pursuant to sections 101 through 103 
     of the bill, including not less than--
       (1) $14,800,000,000 for Federal Aviation Administration 
     operations;
       (2) $12,294,000,000 for air navigation facilities and 
     equipment; and
       (3) $31,276,000,000 for airport planning and development 
     and noise compatibility planning and programs.

  Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct would be to insist upon the 
House levels of funding for the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. There are a number of critical issues looming before us 
in the future of aviation. Some folks think today because the levels of 
travel are depressed that the concerns we had about modernization and 
airspace and a lot of other issues have gone away. They have not. We 
fully expect that with the new security measures we have put in place 
and they are continuing to put in place that people will be returning 
if the economy ever recovers, but that is another issue for another 
debate over tax cuts versus investment. But if the economy does and 
when the economy recovers, we will find that the levels of air 
passenger traffic will increase greatly in the not-too-distant future. 
We cannot take a break from the investments that we need to make.
  Our bill, Flight 100, would provide more than $59 billion over the 
next 4 years; and we think 4 years is essential, because the Senate 
only wants to reauthorize for 3 years, perhaps to come back and tinker 
or whatever reason, but we need the certainty of the 4 years and we 
need the higher levels of investment. It provides substantial increases 
in the airport improvement program, again back to the capacity issue 
and the concerns that were driving us just a couple of years ago here 
in the House in terms of the lack of capacity.
  Our bill would provide $14.8 billion for airport improvement projects 
over 4 years. That is $1.2 billion more than the FAA's request, and it 
would be $300 million more than the Senate has requested, projects that 
would not only enhance capacity but actually put people to work, a 
meaningful investment in construction projects. It would provide $12.3 
billion for FAA facilities and equipment to maintain and modernize our 
air traffic control system. We have finally straightened out the 
problems in acquiring the new system and the technology. We need now to 
go ahead with the acquisition to put this equipment into place so that 
we can better utilize the airspace and we can better protect the safety 
of the traveling public. Again, the Senate has $267 million less than 
the House bill.
  We have a number of other areas where we believe that the House bill 
is superior, but these are the ones we wish to emphasize in our motion 
to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to rise this evening in support of the motion offered by 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. We are in 
concurrence with the other side of the aisle. This is a bipartisan 
effort to instruct conferees on the position of the House as opposed to 
the Senate.
  I would say very briefly that the level of funding that the House 
proposes is in the best interests of our aviation community. There are 
a number of programs that have been spoken to, air traffic control 
modernization and other safety and security issues, that do need to be 
addressed at the level that is authorized by the House and that is the 
preferable position. Again, I am pleased to join my colleague. It would 
be sad if we stepped back, last year was the safest year in the record 
of safety in American aviation history, and not properly address the 
needs of one of the most viable parts of our economy and that is the 
aviation industry. We support the position, we support this motion to 
instruct conferees, we support a 4-year as opposed to a 3-year 
reauthorization. I would strongly encourage the adoption of the motion 
to instruct conferees offered by my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just urge that my colleagues strongly stand behind the work 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in the House and support this

[[Page 18151]]

motion to instruct and stand firm against the Senate so that we can 
have the best bill possible.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct the conferees 
to insist upon not less than the House-passed total of funding of $59 
billion for the next four years for the Federal Aviation 
Administration's airport improvement, facilities and equipment and 
operations programs.
  The funding in the House bill, Flight 100, will ensure that we 
continue to invest in badly needed airport infrastructure and air 
traffic control modernization. This is imperative to the future of 
aviation. Although air passenger traffic has decreased significantly 
since September 11th, the FAA expects that by 2006 total passenger 
enplanements will reach the 2000 level of 696.3 million. The United 
States is the only nation that enplanes over 600 million passengers 
annually. No other nation comes anywhere close to FAA's responsibility 
for managing approximately 200,000 take-offs and landings each day of 
the year. FAA and its air traffic controllers achieve this great feat 
with the assistance of impressive technology, but technology that is 
nonetheless aging.
  We must ensure that we have a robust aviation program to meet all of 
our future challenges, including accommodating larger aircraft; 
addressing airport access issues and terminal expansion; and dealing 
with environmental issues. Flight 100 provides more than $59 billion 
over the next four years of system capacity enhancements, technology 
modernization and operation of the air traffic control system. The 
Senate passed bill authorizes $43 billion for these purposes for the 
next 3 years.
  Flight 100 provides substantial increases in Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) funding to meet anticipated capacity needs. In total, the 
House bill provides $14.8 billion for AIP over four years, $1.2 billion 
more than the FAA's request. The three-year AIP funding levels in the 
Senate bill are $300 million less than funding provided by the House 
bill for the corresponding years.
  Flight 100 provides $12.3 billion for FAA facilities and equipment 
(F&E) to maintain and modernize our air traffic control system, which 
is more that the Administration's requested level of funding. Moreover, 
$200 million is specifically designated for critical terminal 
automation system replacement, which has recently experienced 
deployment delays due to budget cuts. The three-year F&E funding levels 
in the Senate bill are $267 million less than funding provided by the 
House bill for the corresponding years.
  The bill also provides the Administration's requested level of $31.3 
billion for FAA operations.
  Flight 100 maintains the guaranteed funding provisions enacted in 
AIR-21 that will ensure that the revenues paid into the Aviation Trust 
Fund by users of the aviation system are invested in that system. These 
guarantees ensure stable and predictable funding for technology 
modernization and airport capital development.
  Accordingly, I urge the House to approve this motion to instruct 
conferees to insist upon the higher levels of FAA funding in Flight 
100, as passed by the House. We must continue to make the needed 
investments in our nation's airports and air traffic control system. 
The American traveling public deserves no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Young of Alaska, Mica, Ehlers, Hayes, Rehberg, Isakson, 
Oberstar, DeFazio, Boswell and Holden.
  From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of 
section 521 of the House bill and section 508 of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Tauzin, Barton of Texas and Dingell.
  From the Committee on Government Reform, for consideration of 
sections 404 and 438 of the House bill and section 108 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays and Waxman.
  From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections 
106, 301, 405, 505 and 507 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference:
  Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Coble and Conyers.
  From the Committee on Resources, for consideration of sections 204 
and 409 of the House bill and section 201 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Pombo, Gibbons and Rahall, provided that Mr. Renzi is 
appointed in lieu of Mr. Pombo for consideration of section 409 of the 
House bill, and modifications committed to conference.
  From the Committee on Science, for consideration of section 102 of 
the House bill and sections 102, 104, 621, 622, 641, 642, 661, 662, 
663, 667, and 669 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed 
to conference:
  Messrs. Boehlert, Rohrabacher and Costello.
  From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of title VI 
of the House bill and title VII of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Thomas, Camp and Rangel.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________