James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. Chairman, transportation has shaped America's history from its very origins, just as surely it guides our destiny as a Nation. From our beginnings as a colony and our restart as a new Nation, America first developed seaports which dominated the 18th century, and river ports which were characteristic of the 19th century, and railheads in the later 19th century, and our highway system through the late 20th century. But it is airports and aviation that guide and will shape America's destiny in the 21st century. The debate today is not about arcane budget rules. It is about the very future of America and our leadership in the world economy. Every Nation in the world looks to America as the leader in aviation in every aspect of aviation, in air traffic control technology, in runway construction. In the economic and commercial application of aviation, we are the world leader. Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today for this debate, to make sure that the funding mechanism which undergirds and supports and makes possible our air traffic control system, our airport system, our safety and security measures, is itself secure, that it will provide for the future needs of the growth of aviation in America. We understand railroads, we understand transit links, we understand highways as part of an integrated system to deliver transportation necessary for job opportunities for local economic growth, for quality of life for the people of this country. But we do not understand, I do not think the understanding has settled in sufficiently with the people of this country to understand fully the role that aviation plays in America's current and future economy. The air traffic control system for our large hub airports, ever since the explosive growth that began in 1978 with deregulation of aviation, has put constraints, caused delays, created congestion both on the air side and the ground side at the Nation's airports. Flight delays, cancellations, slower flights are all indications of a system that is not meeting the demands of the Nation's growing economy. The DOT Inspector General just recently found that flights at nearly three-quarters of the major air routes are taking longer than they did 10 years ago, as much as 20 minutes longer. Delta Airlines, for example, recently reported that inefficiencies in our air traffic control system cost that airline $300 million a year. But it is not just the major airlines, not just the major airports, it is our smaller communities in the hub and spoke aviation system that are also experiencing the strain of the inability of our aviation structure to meet the Nation's capacity requirements. George Bagley, Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Air, chairman of the Regional Airline Association, said that air traffic control and airport capacity limitations are increasingly burdensome issues for expanding regional airline service. He said we have always figured a way to park more airplanes and get more gates but this year we did not do some flying that we otherwise could have done. The Nation's airports are the ground hubs for these air routes. Capacity is limited. We cannot ignore critical issues, expanding runways to accommodate larger aircraft, expanding terminals, expanding gates to promote competition, and to accommodate the dramatic rise in passengers from 600 million passengers-plus last year to an anticipated billion passengers within the next 10 years. How does this play out? Worldwide there are 1 billion 200 million passengers flying all airlines in the entire world of all nations. Six hundred million, over half of those passengers fly in this airspace in the United States. That is how important. We are half, in fact more than half, of the world's total airport-airline passengers capacity. Travelers at 27 airports in the United States in the last year suffered more than 20,000 hours of delay at each of those airports, and if we do not pass this legislation and make the improvements necessary, we will see that number increase to 31 airports by 2007. We are falling short of airport capacity needs by $3 billion a year. We also have to make improvements in airport technology capacity along with the airport development needs. The shortfalls in airport technology and weather and radar technology also costs us billions of dollars in lost time and lost travel opportunities. Rural areas are denied the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the economic development that they would have because they cannot get into the major hub airports or cannot fully develop their own small airport systems. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission, chaired by former colleague and former chairman of this committee, Norm Mineta, put it very clearly. Without prompt action, the U.S. aviation system is headed toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the century. If gridlock occurs, it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety. The Little Rock Airport situation which our chairman just recently addressed shows us once again, reminds us very vividly and powerfully that aviation accidents are caused by a chain of events, not by a single incident, not by a single missing link. But in this case, if only one link had been addressed, that accident might have been averted or its impact reduced. We are learning now about our weather detection system not fully operational, runway technology which might have prevented fatalities or injuries that was not installed. The proximate cause of the accident is still under investigation, but we are already beginning to see evidence of the possibility that increased aviation investment at that airport may well have made a difference in saving lives. Every dollar we do not spend from the Aviation Trust Fund makes it more likely that there will be more chains of events that lead to tragedies. The bill before us today begins to address the needs of the Nation's aviation system. It will ensure that the attention and focus we have invested in the Interstate Highway System will be extended to aviation, by assuring that we will have a guaranteed revenue stream to ensure that the investments in capacity, modernization, competition and safety in our system will be made and will benefit the traveling public. Example: A runway project at San Francisco to increase capacity and cope with noise will cost a minimum of $1.4 billion and will ensure that smaller airports can take advantage of that airport with increased investments in global positioning satellite technology and weather technology. The funding that we make possible through this guaranteed revenue stream will ensure that the AIP funding that will average $4 billion, together with the proposal to increase the ability of individual airports to increase their PFC by $3, will assure that we will have the funds we need at local airports to reduce congestion, improve safety, reduce noise, and enhance competition. There have been enormous successes with the limited and uncertain- from-year-to-year dollars available for our air traffic control system. Despite the stop-and-go financing that has been characteristic of investment in ATC improvements, FAA has registered enormous success. The nearly $1 billion Voice Switching and Control System, VSCS, was installed over one weekend without shutting down the air traffic control system for 1 second and is now fully operational without any delays or difficulties or system failures that was characteristic of past communications systems and is vastly enhancing the ability of controllers to do their job. The Display System Replacement at the enroute centers has now been installed at all 20 enroute centers nationwide, another $1 billion system with a million lines of computer software code. It is now going through the final stages of acceptance at each one of those centers, vastly enhancing the ability of air traffic controllers to manage the increasing demands on our air traffic control system. Still to come are STARS and Wide Area Augmentation System. Those have incurred delays, but, again, a good deal of that delay has been due to inadequate funding. Tony Broderick, former FAA Assistant Administrator, asked the key question at our committee hearing when he said, we would never expect a business to run efficiently if the funding stream fluctuated wildly, so why do we expect this of the FAA managers? We cannot. With the funding mechanism we put in place in this legislation, we will assure that they have the dollars they need, and we will also ask more of them. With the Air Traffic Control Oversight Board created in this bill, we will increase focus on the managers' performance and hold them accountable for meeting schedule and budget targets. Mr. Chairman, this legislation sets the stage for the 21st century, for the next wave of transportation, for the next generation of American growth in transportation and for growth in our economy at home and abroad. Just as last year's T-21 set the stage for America's movement into the 21st century in ground transportation, AIR 21 sets the stage for America's growth and movement into the 21st century. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) the chairman of our committee, on the leadership that he has demonstrated for this whole body, and for all of transportation in America last year when we moved T-21 and moved America off dead center and into the future, and I commend him again for the leadership that he has shown and for the courage of standing up for what is right for the budget for air travelers, for America, for aviation for the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming the little bit of time I have left, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and would be delighted if he would just include firewalls. That is all that is missing from that language. What we need to have is real firewalls. Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment comes down to how does it affect each Member's State and each Member's airport. Here, come to this desk. Here is a glimpse of the future. Take a look at how the cuts that will result from this amendment will affect Members' airports. We can show them how that will affect their airport.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a volunteer member of the off-budget committee, as suggested by my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Mr. Chairman, I have heard more red herrings in this debate this afternoon than I have heard in a long time on the House floor: No fiscal discipline, all restraints do not count. Baloney. The aviation tax is a restraint. We cannot get more than the taxes provide. The general revenue limit in this bill, that is a restraint. We do not allow the general revenue funds to increase. Any increase demanded by operations is going to come out of the ticket tax fund. The Committee on Appropriations has the ability to limit obligations. That is a restraint. Ignore the rest of the budget? Baloney. The same gang that cannot shoot straight today could not shoot straight last year. They said last year on T-21, oh, my God, the sky is falling if we pass this bill. We will not be able to do health care, we will not be able to do education, we will not be able to do all the other good things we want in this Federal budget. Well, we are doing them. The construction crews are out there on the highways building the road improvements, building the bridge improvements that America wants and needs, making the transit improvements in America's cities they need. All we want is to do the same thing, have the same fairness with the aviation trust fund. Will our good friends and colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations guarantee a commitment to spend out the revenues into the aviation trust fund that come in from the ticket tax every year? I did not hear any of that in the preceding debate. I did not hear any commitments to assure that the taxes and the interest thereon will be invested for the purpose for which air travelers are taxed. We did not hear any of that debate. We heard all this stuff about the general revenues of the United States, of the Federal government. Other agencies provide safety services to the public, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Inspection Service, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, environmental protection. They get 80 percent of their budgets, at least, from the general fund. The FAA is going to get about 23 percent. We are assuring that the taxes into the trust fund will go to cover the cost of general revenues.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a pilot. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the breakdown of time remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Those of the American public who may be watching this debate must be scratching their heads in astonishment and wonderment, because what they are seeing here is the epitome of inside-the-institution debate. ``What are they talking about?'' people must be saying to themselves. Because the average American citizen who boards an airplane knows one thing, they paid a special tax to arrive safely, to take off on time. And we are not using that tax for that purpose to the extent that the tax generate the revenue. Here is the deal: In 1972, the Congress said to the American air traveling public, you pay a special tax debt dedicated to aviation and we, the Congress, will see that we improve aviation so that you can travel safely, secure, and get there on time. And then we came along for years and said, excuse me, but not all of that money, some that we are going to hold it back, and we held back another $6 billion not being spent for aviation purposes. I take sharp objection to the characterization of this bill as pork. There are no individual projects designated for anyplace in America on this bill, unlike appropriations bills that come out with a little drab here and a little drab there. The Committee on Appropriations will continue to have under the manager's amendment and under the law that will result all the authority they need to continue to impose obligation limits. That means withhold spending or not spend any at all if they choose. This is nonsense. The argument that the Air 21 is going to hurt Social Security, baloney. The increased funding out of the tax that we reserve for aviation purposes will not touch the $700-billion surplus generated by Social Security over the next 5 years. Both the Congressional Budget Resolution and the President's budget spend a part of the surplus not generated by Social Security. Those both do. Air 21 will spend $14 billion of the taxes we generate for aviation purposes. Do my colleagues not want to keep faith with the traveling public? There is not a member in this body who does not want his or her airport improved, better air traffic control systems, wind shear detection, microburst detection systems, runway improvements, air traffic control towers. How do we do that? With that dedicated tax. Let us not continue to withhold it when we have a $90 billion surplus on the backs of aviation travelers in the next 10 years if we do not pass this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York for the statement just made and for the strong support of the New York City delegation for this legislation. I believe we have accommodated their concerns in this legislation and appreciate their strong support for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

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. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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. 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. 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.