MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING [CLERK'S NOTE.-Subsequent to the hearing, the following statements were submitted for the record:] (963) STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. MOONEY, PROJECTS DIRECTOR, BROWARD COUNTY AIRPORT EXTENSION PROGRAM Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport located in Broward County, Florida is owned and operated by Broward County. The County recognizes that its own continued growth and prosperity is tied to the growth and development of its air transportation system. It is because this is such an important concern to Broward County that we very much appreciate this opportunity today to share our views with the Committee on the FY 1984 FAA Appropriations for the Airport Improvement Program ("AIP"). We are concerned by the FAA's FY 1984 budget request for only $700 million for the AIP. We believe that in failing to fully fund the program this request violates the spirit of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982. ("1982 Act") The amount requested by the FAA for this program falls nearly $300 million below the $993.5 million level authorized for FY 1984. In his testimony before this Committee several weeks ago presenting the Administration's budget proposal, FAA Administrator Lynn Helms stated that the $700 million requested for FY 1984, when combined with the $750 million obligation limit set for airport improvement in FY 1983, resulted in a two year total for airport grants exceeding the 83/84 authorization limit contained in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as it was originally enacted. However, four months after passage of the 1982 Act, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 increased the AIP obligation ceiling for fiscal years 1983 and 1984 by $200 million each. Thus, in truth, the Administration's $700 million proposal would result in an obligation ceiling of only $1.45 D billion for 1983/84 airport development, as opposed to the $1.793 billion level authorized by Congress in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as amended by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. In addition to underfunding the Airport Improvement Program by nearly $300 million in FY 1984, the Administration's proposal also fails to include $50 million that was authorized but not appropriated for AIP in FY 1983. As the 1982 Act is written, the AIP authorization level for each fiscal year is represented as an aggregate figure, consisting of new monies authorized for that fiscal year plus the AIP's previous years' combined authorization levels. According to the Act's Conference Report, this method of aggregate authorization "insures that authorizations which are not appropriated from the Trust Fund in any given fiscal year are Congress set an AIP obligation limit for carried forward." - FY 1983 of $750 million million authorization level. Thus, in addition to the $993.5 million authorization level established for FY 1984, the $50 million in carryover contract authority from FY 1983 should be made available for obligation in the upcoming 1984 fiscal year as well. $50 million below that year's $800 This Congress should make all of these funds available for obligation in FY 1984 in light of the great need for airport development. Both the full House, and the House and Senate Budget Committees have recognized this need by their recent approval of Budget Resolutions which have endorsed full AIP funding for FY 1984 at that year's authorization ceiling of $993.5 million. By contrast, funding at a level below that authorized for FY 1984, as proposed by the Administration, will have a significant adverse impact on the continued development of the national air transportation infrastructure and in particular, upon Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport's critically needed development plan. As the Committee is aware, one of the major hurdles to passage of the 1982 Act was the concern over the lack of guarantees of expenditures from the Trust Fund for AIP. There was significant concern that the Executive Branch would, as it had throughout the 1970's, reduce spending for airport improvement and accumulate massive amounts of funds collected and intended for airport development in order to help balance the budget. These concerns stalemated passage of authorizing legislation for almost three years until Congress and the aviation community received explicit assurances from the Administration that in return for significantly increased user fees, the Administration would agree to spend AIP funds at the levels authorized. One example of the assurances provided is shown in the following exchange between then-Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis and Chairman Robert Packwood in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Senate Commerce Commit tee: Senator Packwood (The Chairman). Secretary Lewis. We agree completely. And if there is any way you can lock us in, in terms of the legislation, we would be pleased to be locked in so we are obligated, not only the two of us but whoever our successors should be. ranspor lerdale ded Jack We feel very strongly the money is needed. We do not see this as a budget balancer. And I am sure that Mr. Stockman will work with us, because he has accepted the need for the airports. The Chairman. Mr. Helms. Thank you. Senator, I would add on that just briefly that the Secretary and I recognize this is a sensitive issue, and he and I just discussed this directly with Mr. Stockman to insure that there is no misunderstanding. And Mr. Stockman did pledge to work with us across the board. So we do not feel we have any problem at all. The Chairman. It is a doubly sensitive issue. First, user fees are to be used for the purpose for which they are intended and not to be used for mounting up surpluses. Second, and even worse, the revenues should not go into the general fund or the highway trust fund from taxes levied on those who use the airways and the airports. Mr. Helms. It was that specific commitment which Mr. Stockman made that we would draw down the surplus and not let it go back up. It was only upon the basis of these assurances that Congress reluctantly agreed in the 1982 tax bill to substantially increase user fees: the airline passenger ticket tax went from 5% to 8% and the general aviation fuel tax went from 4¢ per gallon to 12¢ per gallon for gasoline and from no tax to 14¢ per gallon for jet fuel. These taxes are being collected and are going into the Trust Fund; but now seven months after passage of the 1982 Act, and just a few months after passage of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 which authorized an additional $200 million for FY 1984 AIP discretionary funds, the Administration is withdrawing 1/ Airport and Airway System Development Act of 1981: |