February 5, 1980
Page 1776
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 1648, the Airport and Airway System Development Act of 1979, reauthorizes and significantly modifies the programs that have been funded under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970.
Because S. 1648 provides direct spending authority in fiscal 1981, a year for which no budget resolution has been adopted, it required a waiver of section 303 (a) of the Budget Act.
Mr. President, the resolution waiving this section of the Budget Act, Senate Resolution 288, was reported by the Commerce Committee and referred to the Budget Committee which reported favorably on December 11. The Senate adopted the waiver resolution on December 14.
Notwithstanding approval of the waiver resolution, Mr. President, it is worth noting that during the Budget Committee's consideration of the waiver resolution a number of questions were raised regarding the need for this legislation at this time. These questions are of sufficient importance, Mr. President that I think they should be brought to the attention of the Senate. I will review these questions shortly. Before I do, however, I will take just a few minutes to discuss the budgetary aspects of the bill.
As reported, S. 1648 provides authorizations of $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1981 and totaling $8.5 billion over a 5-year period, fiscal years 1981-85, from the airport and airway trust fund. Much of this authorization total represents direct spending authority for grants in aid for airport development. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the authorization levels in this bill be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to note two things about these authorizations. First, the fiscal year 1981 level of $1.7 billion is roughly 31 percent above the fiscal year 1980 level enacted to date. Lest the Senate forget, fiscal year 1981 budget targets agreed to in the second resolution call for a balanced Federal budget in that year. This bill will make it more difficult for the Senate to stay within its own approved budget plan for fiscal year 1981.
Second, the major program grants for airport development, is scheduled to receive funding of over $3.2 billion during the 5-year period covered by the bill. While this amount may seem to be a modest increase over the amount available during the previous 5 years, the comparison of aggregate funding is misleading because the bill significantly reduces eligibility for airport grants.
Under S. 1648, the largest airports in the country would no longer be eligible for airport development grants. The Commerce Committee report on S. 1648 estimates that 72 airports would be removed from the ADAP program and these 72 airports were specifically excluded by a floor amendment on last Thursday. But these 72 largest airports account for about 86 percent of all passenger enplanements in the country. I believe that this is a cause for concern — increased funding but elimination of airports serving 86 percent of the passengers. How can airports serving only 14 percent of the passengers possibly warrant an increase in total program funding? I hope that the distinguished floor manager will shed some light on this question during consideration of the bill.
Mr. President, the authorization levels in the bill, especially the big increase in fiscal year 1981, represent my first reservation about this legislation, and especially about the need for the Senate to act upon it in advance of the regular budget calendar provided for in the Budget Act. This is direct spending legislation and is not likely to be reviewed again by the Congress for 5 years.
Enactment now will give these aviation programs first claim on the fiscal year 1981 budget and could cause the other transportation programs to have to compete within a more limited funding allowance.
The direct spending and appropriations authorized in S. 1648 exceeds the fiscal 1981 request of the President and would breach the fiscal year 1981 congressional budget by $0.2 billion in budget authority and $0.1 billion in outlays. For future years, the airport grant level is reduced in fiscal year 1982 but the total authorizations increase between fiscal year 1982 and fiscal year 1985 and exceed the out-year projections of the congressional budget. The 5-year excess total $0.7 billion in budget authority and $0.6 billion in outlays, over the congressional budget.
When the Budget Committee considered the waiver resolution for this bill on December 11, the Commerce Committee argued that floor consideration of the authorization bill is urgent because all aviation taxes will lapse on June 30, 1980, and cause serious administrative problems. I opposed the waiver in committee because I found no compelling reason to consider this legislation in advance of the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1981 or receipt of the President's fiscal year 1981 budget proposals. I continue to have reservations about consideration now. This bill represents commitment for 5 years spending and includes significant program changes.
Mr. President, there is a third aspect of this bill that was discussed by the Budget Committee.
That problem is its failure to significantly increase the airport and airway trust fund contributions for FAA air traffic control expenses. Of total FAA operating expenses, amounting to $2.1 billion in fiscal year 1980, only about 15 percent are now paid from the ticket taxes and other user charges going into the trust fund. The remainder is financed from general revenues from all taxpayers.
The airport and airway trust fund should bear a larger portion of the burden for navigation system expenses of the Federal Aviation Administration. The President's legislative proposal requests an authorization of $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1981, with the level increasing annually to $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1985.
Mr. President, the current FAA costs, the biggest part of which is the operation and maintenance of the airways navigation system, will be about $2.1 billion in fiscal 1980. The President has requested $2.3 billion for fiscal year 1981. The surplus in the trust fund should be used to finance a larger portion of Federal assistance for air navigation and traffic control, as was originally conceived when the trust fund and its use-related taxes were established.
Mr. President, the proposed funding increases for airport development concern me because they seem to be motivated in part by the misperception that there is a pile of money that will go to waste if it is not expended for more airport development.
Proponents of program increases say that the increases are justified by the existence of a surplus in the airport and airway trust fund. It seems clear to me that the desire to spend this surplus is driving up the ADAP authorization levels proposed in this bill.
It is true that there is an uncommitted balance of about $2.7 billion in the trust fund, but this is not the same as saying that it is necessary to spend another $2.7 billion on airport projects.
Indeed, the whole purpose behind the establishment of the airport and airway trust fund was to have user taxes pay not just for the cost of airport development, but for all types of Federal spending to assist air transportation. It makes no sense to set up a trust fund and earmark revenues for only one part of a program. The revenues continue to accumulate and should be used to increase trust fund support of the FAA and to reduce the burden on the general taxpayer.
The result has been something different than originally intended. Trust fund revenues have been used to finance airport development, as intended. But much of Federal assistance to air transportation continues to come from general revenues — and that was not intended. Transfer of all FAA costs to the trust fund would use up the major part of the surplus, $2.1 billion or more, in 1 year. You can see that any talk about a surplus in the trust fund is misleading.
There is another problem with this notion of using up the so-called surplus in the trust fund. This bill proposes increased spending for airport development while related legislation introduced by the chairman of the Commerce Committee proposes to reduce the revenues accruing to the trust fund. It is too early to tell what reaction the Finance Committee may have to the tax reduction proposal, but I think it makes more sense to use this surplus, at least in part, to reduce taxpayer subsidization of air travel.
The airport and airway trust fund was originally established to finance most Federal aviation costs. The Senate considered this a sound policy at that time, but to date only minor trust fund contributions to FAA costs have been made. The trust fund contributions that have been made are largely due to Senate approval of the Buckley amendment to the 1976 air bill, which reestablished the authorizations for trust fund payments to cover a portion of FAA costs. This Senate policy was supported by 30 Senators who are still in this body.
The Senate already approved a bill on May 1, 1979, which provided that an additional $250 million of FAA costs would be borne by the trust fund in fiscal year 1980 for a total of $575 million, and I am very disappointed that it has not been enacted.
Mr. President, because this bill could cause the fiscal year 1981 congressional budget to be exceeded even though it eliminates the Nation's busiest airports from eligibility, because it should be acted on after all spending priorities have been considered by the Senate in the congressional budget, and because the trust fund surplus should be used to finance a larger portion of FAA expenses, I must vote against this bill and urge other Senators to do likewise.