James Oberstar: “I too support the spirit of the gentleman's amendment, but not the language and not the approach and certainly not the…”

“I too support the spirit of the gentleman's amendment, but not the language and not the approach and certainly not the additional cost without offsets. I do want to point out that under FAA's Airport Improvement Program and with the use of passenger facility charges, airports can accomplish this purpose. In fact, provided that the vehicle is owned by the Airport Authority, operated solely on airport property, the funds from passenger facility charges can be used to purchase such vehicles. Where a vehicle is not AIP eligible, FAA would pay for the difference in cost between low emissions and a regular vehicle. We have addressed this matter already in the appropriate context in the FAA reauthorization bill. So there is a way of accomplishing it. Under Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, funds are apportioned to the States to improve their air quality in nonattainment areas. The pilot program, unfortunately, does not address nonattainment areas within States. So just as we opposed taking FAA money off airports, we are in the position of taking CMAQ money and putting it into airports. So the purpose of the gentleman is at cross purposes with public policy already in place, and reluctantly we must oppose the amendment. But we will work with the gentleman and find a way that we can accomplish this purpose.”