PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-6.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Mar 17, 1999
Interim Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act - Amends Federal aviation law to extend the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for two months. Provides that not more than $1.3 billion of funds available under the Grants-in-Aid for Airports Program may be obligated before the enactment of a law extending contract authorization for such program beyond May 31, 1999. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1999 for: (1) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities and Equipment Program; and (2) FAA operations. Removes the maximum cap on AIP funds credited to the discretionary fund. Terminates the Military Airport Program under the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. Makes specified changes to the formula for crediting airport improvement fund amounts to the AIP discretionary fund and the small airport fund. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve the application of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (pending at the Department of Transportation on March 17, 1999) for the expenditure of up to $30 million that otherwise would have been made available to it for passenger facility fee-airport development project grants.
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.
Became Public Law No: 106-6.
Became Public Law No: 106-6.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H1670)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H1670)
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1669-1670)
Mr. Shuster asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Senate incorporated this measure in H.R. 99 as an amendment. (consideration: CR S2825)
Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 100-0. Record Vote No: 52. (text: CR S1899-1910)
Senate roll call 52 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 100-0. Record Vote No: 52.(text: CR S1899-1910)
Senate roll call 52 · Individual votesIntroduced in the Senate, read twice.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S2821-2825)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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 S.643 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.643 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.643 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.643 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.