PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 17, 1996
Airport Revenue Protection Act of 1996 - Amends Federal aviation law to prohibit, with specified exceptions, the expenditure for non-airport purposes of local aviation fuel taxes or revenues generated by an airport that is the subject of Federal assistance or that operates pursuant to an airport operating certificate. Terminates all current (grandfathered) exceptions to such prohibition ten years after enactment of this Act, or on the date all covered debt obligations are either retired or refinanced, whichever is earlier. Requires the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to promulgate regulations requiring a recipient of an airport project grant or any other Federal airport financial assistance to include in its annual audit a review of airport-related funding activities, which must be certified by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General. Requires the Secretary: (1) to review any audit identifying an illegal diversion of airport revenues; and (2) after determining such identification is accurate, and notifying the airport and its sponsor, to assess, or withhold from apportioned or grant funds, an administrative penalty equaling the amount of the diversion plus interest and, at the Secretary's discretion, a payment to a whistleblowing petitioner, if any. Provides for a civil action by the Secretary for both administrative and specified civil penalties if the sponsor fails to pay the administrative assessment. Requires the Secretary to reimburse an airport affected by a diversion the collected diversion amount plus interest. Directs the Secretary, acting through the FAA Administrator, to establish a (whistleblower) process under which a private citizen or other party (except for a DOT or auditor employee) may petition for review of an allegation of illegal diversion of airport revenues. Requires a payment to the petitioner if any such funds are recovered. Prohibits disclosure of the petitioner's identity. Authorizes a private citizen to bring a (qui tam) civil action for a violation of the prohibition set forth in this Act. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to conform to this Act.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5268-5269)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1774 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 S.1774 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 S.1774 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 S.1774 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.