PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2003
Amends Federal aviation law to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to grandfather, that is, apportion airport development and noise compatibility program funds to a primary airport sponsor in a fiscal year in an amount equal to that apportioned to such sponsor in the previous fiscal year if the Secretary finds: (1) passenger boardings at such airport are below 10,000 in the calendar year used to calculate the apportionment as a result of the discontinuance of air carrier service to and from the airport in any of the three calendar years preceding the calendar year used for such calculations; and (2) the airport had at least 10,000 passenger boardings in any of such three preceding calendar years.
People & committees
Rep. Stupak, Bart [D-MI-1] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.630 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.630 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.630 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.630 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.