Congressional Record on the Topic

7/30/2019 Congressional Record on the Topic

1/69

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSEH2130 March 31, 2011Chaffetz

Chandler

Coble

Coffman (CO)

Cole

Conaway

Costa

Costello

Courtney

Cravaack

Crawford

Crenshaw

Critz

Cuellar

Culberson

Davis (IL)

Davis (KY)Dent

DesJarlais

Diaz-Balart

Dold

Donnelly (IN)

Dreier

Duffy

Duncan (SC)

Duncan (TN)

Ellmers

Emerson

Farenthold

Farr

Fincher

Fitzpatrick

Flake

Fleischmann

Fleming

Flores

Forbes

Fortenberry

FoxxFrank (MA)

Franks (AZ)

Gallegly

Gardner

Garrett

Gerlach

Gibbs

Gibson

Gingrey (GA)

Gohmert

Goodlatte

Gosar

Gowdy

Granger

Graves (GA)

Graves (MO)

Griffin (AR)

Griffith (VA)

Grimm

Guinta

Guthrie

Hall

Harper

Harris

Hartzler

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Heck

Heller

Hensarling

Herger

Herrera Beutler

Holden

Huelskamp

Huizenga (MI)

Hultgren

Hunter

Hurt

Issa

Jenkins

Johnson (IL)

Johnson (OH)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Jordan

Kaptur

Keating

Kelly

Kind

King (IA)

King (NY)

Kingston

Kinzinger (IL)

Kissell

Kline

Labrador

Lamborn

Lance

Landry

LangevinLankford

Larsen (WA)

Latham

LaTourette

Latta

Lewis (CA)

LoBiondo

Loebsack

Long

Lucas

Luetkemeyer

Lummis

Lungren, Daniel

E.

Mack

Manzullo

Marchant

Marino

Matheson

McCarthy (CA)

McCarthy (NY)

McCaulMcClintock

McCotter

McGovern

McHenry

McIntyre

McKeon

McKinley

McMorris

Rodgers

McNerney

Meehan

Mica

Michaud

Miller (FL)

Miller (MI)

Miller (NC)

Miller, Gary

Mulvaney

Murphy (PA)

Myrick

Neugebauer

Noem

Nugent

Nunes

Nunnelee

Olson

Owens

Palazzo

Paul

Paulsen

Pearce

Pence

Perlmutter

Peters

Peterson

Petri

Pingree (ME)

Pitts

Platts

Poe (TX)

Pompeo

Posey

Price (GA)

Price (NC)

Quayle

Rahall

Reed

Rehberg

Reichert

Renacci

Reyes

Ribble

Richardson

Rigell

Rivera

Roby

Roe (TN)

Rogers (AL)

Rogers (KY)

Rogers (MI)Rohrabacher

Rokita

Rooney

Ros-Lehtinen

Roskam

Ross (AR)

Ross (FL)

Royce

Runyan

Ryan (WI)

Scalise

Schilling

Schmidt

Schock

Schrader

Schweikert

Scott (SC)

Scott, Austin

Scott, David

Sensenbrenner

Sessions

SewellShimkus

Shuler

Shuster

Simpson

Sires

Smith (NE)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Southerland

Stearns

Stivers

Stutzman

Sullivan

Terry

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Thompson (PA)

Thornberry

Tiberi

Tipton

Turner

Upton

Walberg

Walden

Walsh (IL)

Walz (MN)

Watt

Webster

Weiner

Welch

West

Westmoreland

Whitfield

Wilson (SC)

Wittman

Wolf

Womack

Woodall

Wu

Yoder

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Young (IN)

NAYS130

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldwin

Bass (CA)

Becerra

Berkley

Berman

Bishop (NY)

Blumenauer

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Capuano

Carnahan

Carson (IN)

Castor (FL)

Chu

Cicilline

Clarke (MI)

Clarke (NY)

Clay

Cleaver

Clyburn

Cohen

Connolly (VA)

Conyers

Cooper

Crowley

Cummings

Davis (CA)

DeFazio

DeGette

DeLauro

Deutch

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Doyle

Edwards

Ellison

Engel

Eshoo

Fattah

Filner

Fudge

Garamendi

Gonzalez

Green, Al

Green, Gene

Grijalva

Gutierrez

Hanabusa

Hastings (FL)

Heinrich

Higgins

Himes

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Hirono

Holt

Honda

Hoyer

InsleeIsrael

Jackson (IL)

Jackson Lee

(TX)

Johnson (GA)

Johnson, E. B.

Kildee

Kucinich

Larson (CT)

Lee (CA)

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lipinski

Lofgren, Zoe

Lowey

Lujan

Lynch

Markey

Matsui

McCollum

Meeks

Miller, George

Moore

Moran

Murphy (CT)

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal

OlverPallone

Pascrell

Pastor (AZ)

Payne

Pelosi

Polis

Quigley

Rangel

Rothman (NJ)

Roybal-Allard

Ruppersberger

Rush

Ryan (OH)

Sanchez, Linda

T.

Sanchez, Loretta

Sarbanes

Schakowsky

Schiff

Schwartz

Scott (VA)

Serrano

Sherman

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Speier

Stark

Sutton

TierneyTonko

Towns

Tsongas

Van Hollen

Velazquez

Visclosky

Wasserman

Schultz

Waters

Waxman

Wilson (FL)

Woolsey

Yarmuth

NOT VOTING10

Barton (TX)

Braley (IA)

Campbell

Denham

Frelinghuysen

Giffords

Hanna

Maloney

McDermott

Richmond

b 1455

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed hisvote from yea to nay.

So (two-thirds being in the affirma-tive) the rules were suspended and thebill, as amended, was passed.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. HANNA. Madam Speaker, I was un-avoidably absent for votes. Had I beenpresent, I would have voted yes on rollcallvotes 205 and 206.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-mous consent that all Members mayhave 5 legislative days to revise and ex-tend their remarks on H.R. 658 and in-clude extraneous materials in the CON-GRESSIONAL RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.WESTMORELAND). Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromFlorida?

There was no objection.

f

FAA REAUTHORIZATION AND

REFORM ACT OF 2011The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-

ant to House Resolution 189 and ruleXVIII, the Chair declares the House inthe Committee of the Whole House onthe state of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill, H.R. 658.

b 1458

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the state of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 658) to

amend title 49, United States Code, toauthorize appropriations for the Fed-eral Aviation Administration for fiscalyears 2011 through 2014, to streamlineprograms, create efficiencies, reducewaste, and improve aviation safety andcapacity, to provide stable funding forthe national aviation system, and forother purposes, with Mrs. EMERSON inthe chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the

bill is considered read the first time.General debate shall be confined to

the bill and amendments specified inHouse Resolution 189 and shall not ex-ceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally di-vided and controlled by the chair andranking minority member of the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure, 10 minutes equally dividedand controlled by the chair and rank-ing minority member of the Committeeon Science, Space, and Technology, and10 minutes equally divided and con-trolled by the chair and ranking minor-ity member of the Committee on Waysand Means.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr.MICA) and the gentleman from West

Virginia (Mr. RAHALL) each will con-trol 20 minutes. The gentleman fromTexas (Mr. HALL), the gentlewomanfrom Maryland (Ms. EDWARDS), thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP)and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.LEVIN) each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. MICA).

b 1500

Mr. MICA. I yield myself such timeas I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the legislation be-fore us now, as the Chair has indicated,is the FAA Reauthorization and Re-form Act of 2011.

During the discussion on the rulewhich brought the measure to thefloor, I had an opportunity to speak onthe fairness of the rule, and again Illcite: Having been here for a number ofyears and observed the process forthree decades, I rarely find any time inwhich everyone has had a fair oppor-tunity to offer amendments. Some 48amendments were offered before theRules Committee. Thirty-three wereaccepted. Nine were withdrawn. Sothere are only six that were not consid-eredsome for germaneness reasons,some for being duplicativeand also,in fairness, for Members to have an op-portunity to participate. So, again, I

think the process that we have comeforward with is very, very fair. Theprocess has been fair and bipartisan inthe committee.

In the last 4 years, as the ranking Re-publican, Republican leader of thecommittee, I can count on probablyless than three fingers the number ofvotes that we had over the 4 years. Wehad many more votes than that in thecommittee. It was an open process andpeople had the opportunity to partici-pate.

I also spoke in the rule of how we gotourselves in this predicament. I had

VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.005 H31MRPT1


2/69

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE H2131March 31, 2011

the honor and privilege of being thechair of the Aviation Subcommitteeafter the beginning of 9/11 and throughthe fateful time of 9/11 for 6 years. In2003, we passed the last authorizationfor FAA. Now, in order to operate theFederal Government and each of itsagencies and activities, the Congressmust authorize the programs, the poli-cies, the agencies, the funding for-mulas, and the projects that are eligi-ble for Federal participation.

As I also stated, the other side of theaisle for 4 years had huge majorities,could pass anything that they wantedto. Very large majority in the House,large majority in the Senate. And thelast 2 years, indeed, they controlled theWhite House, the House, and the Sen-ate. They could pass anything theywanted.

In 2007, the bill that I helped author,a 4-year authorization, expired. Theydid 17 extensions in 4 years. Its nowonder people dont have jobs. Its nowonder that people in the aviation in-dustry dont know which way the Fed-eral Government is coming or going.Its no wonder that you have some dis-

array in one of our most importantagencies, the FAA. They had 4 years;weve had less than 4 months. Werebringing the bill out.

Weve had a fair process in the com-mittee, and weve had opportunity forpeople to offer amendments and willspend most of today and maybe part oftomorrow going through those amend-ments in, I think, an adequate time fordebate. The bill does make some reduc-tions in spending and it does take usback to the 2008 level of spending.

Now, the first thing you will hearfrom the other side is, Oh, the Repub-licans are cutting and slashing impor-tant FAA programs and safety and se-curity and everything under the sunwill be at risk. I can tell you thatthats not the case. I can tell you thatyou can do more with less, and we canprioritize. In fact, in this bill, to makecertain that safety is our primary con-cernand it must be our primary con-cernwe have put specific provisionsin here that if there are cuts or reduc-tionsand heaven knows the FAA andthe Department of Transportation cer-tainly can have reductions in bureau-cratic staffing. My dad used to saywhen he was alive, Son, its not howmuch you spend; its how you spendit. And its just like that with per-sonnel.

People say, well, were not going tohave enough air traffic controllers. Wejust had the incident out at Reagan.We had an air traffic controller withsome 20 years experience, 17 years atDCA, came to work I guess at 10oclock. There was somebody thereuntil almost 10:30. So I understand hewas there an hour and 28 minutes andeither fell asleep or wasnt doing hisduty. So, in Washington, what do theydo? Weve got to double up. Weve gotto have more employees.

Listen to this statistic. Since before2001, we have a 21 percent decrease. If

we go to 2001 to today, we have a 21percent decrease in air traffic move-ments. Why? Because the industry hasconsolidated. We dont have as manyflights. The economy is down. At thesame time, we have an increase in 20percent of staffing. If you look at air-ports around the country, you will seesome with huge reductions in air traf-fic and still the same number of airtraffic controllers. In this bill, we givesome flexibility so you can hopefully

move people around.Now, I know there are labor agree-ments and its hard to get people tomove, and some people might not likethe warm climes and beauty of Floridawhere the population has expandedand Arizona and wherever else we needthembut, for heavens sake, do weneed to double up? Do we need to dou-ble up when theres no air traffic atthese airports between midnight and 5a.m.? Thats the Washington big spend-ing, big government. Lets add more.

So I can tell you that theres plentyof room for doing things responsibly,doing things with safety in mind. Nowlets try a new approach with the best

interests of the taxpayer.Theyve spent some $5.3 billion inabout 24 months more than we take in.Were on the verge of having our finan-cial security of this Nation at risk andalso threatening even the defense secu-rity of this Nation.

Again, 17 times they did these littlehiccup extensions, costing millions ofdollars. Just ask the FAA adminis-trator; the recalculation, all the thingsthat had to be done; the inability tomove forward with safety programs, forthat matter.

So I just want to make the point thatwe can accomplish what weve set out:a reduction in spending and, actually,better performance and better safety. Icould give more examples. I dont havea lot of time.

We used to chase developmental pro-grams, and the government would tryto develop technology for air trafficcontrol, and they take forever. And theprivate sector would develop tech-nologies. They do it sooner, faster, bet-ter, with more capability, while werestill spending billions of dollars reck-lessly. And we reduced, actually, theamount of money in those develop-mental programs, and we actually haveput out there the technology faster,better. So there are many areas, and Icant spend all my time talking aboutthem.

This is a job creation bill. 9.2 percentof the gross domestic activity in thisNation depends on this industry. Wecount on this. As I said, in less than 4months, the other body, the Senate,has already passed the bill. Were readyto go to conference. Weve asked forone extension to accomplish this. Andthis bill has excellent provisions.

Finally, you will hear them moanand groan about some labor provisionthat someone described that were tak-ing away democratic rights and all ofthis for union members. It couldnt be

further from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for laborwhere weve always had a majority ofthose who were affected have to vote ina union. Now they want to change it towhoever shows up. They have multipleelections. And thats what theyre ask-ing for.

The little caveat hereand I hope ev-eryone is listening, Madam Chair.What they didnt do is to decertify toget out of the union. They left the oldrule in place. There has to be a major-ity of everyone whos affected.

Theyll tell you that they didnt letwomen vote and all this a long timeago, try to mix up the topic at handand confuse people, but you cant thinkof a more unfair rule than a packed Na-tional Mediation Board has enacted.Unfair, easy to enter in, cut the provi-sions for entering in, and then put abarrier up to get out.

Again, I think this is an excellentprogram. It gives us opportunities tolook at contract towers and then airtraffic control, NextGen, the next gen-eration of air traffic control. We can dobetter. We can get technology in place.Well probably have to use fewer peo-ple. And well always know where theplanes are if we can move this legisla-tion forward that, again, has been onthe shelf for some 4 years.

There are excellent provisions in thislegislation. I feel confident that it de-serves the support of the House, andwell have fair and open debate onamendments.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COM-MITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, ANDTECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.

Hon. JOHN MICA,Chairman, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you

concerning the jurisdictional interest of theCommittee on Science, Space, and Tech-nology in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011.

H.R. 658 was favorably reported by theCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure on March 10, 2011 and sequentiallyreferred to the Committee on Science, Space,and Technology. I recognize and appreciateyour desire to bring this legislation beforethe House of Representatives in an expedi-tious manner, and, accordingly, I will waivefurther consideration of this bill in Com-mittee. This, of course, being conditional onour mutual understanding that Title X ofthe legislation reported by your Committeewill be removed from the legislation and pro-visions regarding research and developmentactivities at the Federal Aviation Adminis-

tration developed by the Committee onScience, Space, and Technology will be in-cluded in the legislation considered on theFloor. However, agreeing to waive consider-ation of this bill should not be construed aswaiving, reducing or affecting the jurisdic-tion of the Committee on Science, Space,and Technology.

Further, I request your support in the ap-pointment of conferees from the Committeeon Science, Space, and Technology duringany House-Senate conference convened onthis, or any similar legislation. I also askthat a copy of this letter and your responsebe placed in the Congressional Record duringconsideration of the bill on the House floor.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K31MR7.046 H31MRPT1


3/69

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSEH2132 March 31, 2011I look forward to working with you as we

prepare to pass this important legislation.Sincerely,

RALPH M. HALL,Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COM-MITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION ANDINFRASTRUCTURE,


Hon. RALPH M. HALL,Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology, Washington, DC.DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your

letter regarding H.R. 658, the FAA Reau-thorization and Reform Act of 2011. TheCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure recognizes the Committee onScience, Space, and Technology has a juris-dictional interest in H.R. 658, and I appre-ciate your effort to facilitate considerationof this bill.

As you wrote in your letter, we haveagreed to strike Title X from the Transpor-tation and Infrastructure Committee re-ported H.R. 658. Provisions regarding re-search and development activities at theFederal Aviation Administration developedby the Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology will be included in the legisla-tion considered on the House Floor.

I also concur with you that forgoing actionon this bill does not in any way prejudice the

Committee on Science, Space, and Tech-nology with respect to its jurisdictional pre-rogatives on this bill or similar legislationin the future, and I would support your effortto seek appointment of an appropriate num-ber of conferees to any House-Senate con-ference involving this legislation.

I will include our letters on H.R. 658 in theCongressional Record during House Floorconsideration of the bill. Again, I appreciateyour cooperation regarding this legislationand I look forward to working with the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Technology asthe bill moves through the legislative proc-ess.

Sincerely,JOHN L. MICA,

Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,


Hon. JOHN MICA,Chairman, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.DEAR CHAIRMAN MICA, I am writing con-

cerning H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011, which is scheduledfor floor consideration next week. As a resultof your having consulted with us on provi-sions in H.R. 658 that fall within the Rule Xjurisdiction of the Committee on the Judici-ary, we are able to agree to forego action onthis bill in order that it may proceed expedi-tiously to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this actionwith our mutual understanding that by fore-going consideration of H.R. 658 at this time,

we do not waive any jurisdiction over subjectmatter contained in this or similar legisla-tion, and that our Committee will be appro-priately consulted and involved as the bill orsimilar legislation moves forward so that wemay address any remaining issues in our ju-risdiction. Our Committee also reserves theright to seek appointment of an appropriatenumber of conferees to any House-Senateconference involving this or similar legisla-tion, and requests your support for any suchrequest.

I would appreciate your response to thisletter confirming this understanding with re-spect to H.R. 658, and would ask that a copyof our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dur-ing floor consideration.

Sincerely,LAMAR SMITH,

Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COM-MITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION ANDINFRASTRUCTURE,


Hon. LAMAR SMITH,Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Ray-

burn House Office Building, Washington,

DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for yourletter regarding H.R. 658, the FAA Reau-thorization and Reform Act of 2011. TheCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure recognizes the Committee on theJudiciary has a jurisdictional interest inH.R. 658, and I appreciate your effort to fa-cilitate consideration of this bill.

I also concur with you that forgoing actionon this bill does not in any way prejudice theCommittee on the Judiciary with respect toits jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill orsimilar legislation in the future, and I wouldsupport your effort to seek appointment ofan appropriate number of conferees to anyHouse-Senate conference involving this leg-islation.

I will include our letters on H.R. 658 in theCONGRESSIONAL RECORD during House Floor

consideration of the bill. Again, I appreciateyour cooperation regarding this legislationand I look forward to working with the Com-mittee on the Judiciary as the bill movesthrough the legislative process.

Sincerely,JOHN L. MICA,

Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

b 1510

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, it was just last weektwo airliners landed at Washington Na-tional Airport without landing clear-ances because apparently the singleperson in charge of the control towerfell asleep. While investigations are on-going, we certainly have seen accidentsin the past where controller staffingand fatigue were implicated, such asthe August 2006 crash of Comair Flight5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.

So I was surprised when some of myRepublican colleagues used this mostrecent incident at Washington Na-tional Airport as an opportunity toargue that the FAA should do morewith less. Do more with less: thatshow the Republicans think the FAAwill operate under this bill. When weretalking about investing in air trafficcontrol modernization or regulatingsafety or hiring a sufficient number ofsafety inspectors, theres no such thingas doing more with less.

Under this bill, the FAA will have todo less with less, and you would haveto be asleep at the controls not to seethat.

The FAA is primarily a safety agen-cy, and virtually all of its activitiesare safety related. As last weeks inci-dent should make clear, now is not thetime to arbitrarily cut almost $4 bil-lion from the FAA programs and arguethat the agency can do more with lesson safety. A long-term FAA reauthor-

ization bill must move the aviationsystem into the 21st century, createjobs, strengthen our economy, and pro-vide the resources necessary to en-hance safety. This legislation, unfortu-nately, does not meet those goals. Itwill require significant changes beforeit can be enacted into law, and there-fore I cannot support it.

One thing we should all be honestabout right now: this is not a jobs bill.The bill cuts FAA funding by billionsof dollars, back to 2008 levels. You can-not cut funding so dramatically with-out destroying tens of thousands ofjobs: Federal jobs, State jobs, localjobs, public and private sector jobs.

In addition to costing jobs, the billsfunding cuts would cause delays to airtraffic control modernization, meaningmore delayed flights, a reduction ofFAAs safety workforce and delays toFAA safety rules.

Now, aside from the funding levels,there are two particular issues thatpreclude my support for this bill. Thefirst is that the bill sunsets the Essen-tial Air Service program for the lower48 States in 2013, leaving behind about110 communities across the country.

Yet at the same time, the bill extendsairport improvements to the MarshallIslands, Micronesia, and Palau. We donot even own them. They are inde-pendent countries.

Now, I do understand the reasons forproviding airport improvement fundsto these island nations. We do have acompact with them. But in seeking tokeep faith with our agreements withthose countries, the majority is morethan willing to break the promise torural America right here at home thatwas made under the Airline Deregula-tion Act and the FAA reauthorizationbills that followed.

EAS is a vital lifeline between rural

communities and the global network ofcommerce. Small and rural commu-nities have grown up around EAS,which directly supports local jobs. Itcreates a flow of goods and commerceinto and out of small-town America. Itbrings families together. It links fourcommunities in my home State of WestVirginia with other cities and townsaround the country and around theworld.

Essential Air Service is an invest-ment; its not a handout. It is an in-vestment in jobs and economic growthfor small towns. The majority is turn-ing its back on small towns and ruralAmerica.

I will continue to work with my col-leagues in a bipartisan fashion tohonor the promise that Congress hasmade to the people in rural America. Irecognize the job-protecting benefits ofthe EAS program and the value of crit-ical Federal investment for rural com-munities.

Now, before I conclude, theres an-other section that has no businesswhatsoever being in this bill, and thatis a provision that seeks to overturn arule finalized by the National Medi-ation Board on fair union representa-tion in elections. The rule did away

VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:31 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.007 H31MRPT1


4/69


with an unjust and undemocratic re-quirement under which a super-majority of airline and railroad work-ers had to vote in favor of union rep-resentation before a union could be cer-tified to represent them at the bar-gaining table. Non-votes were countedas no votes, even though there wasno reason to conclude workers wereagainst union representation becausethey were sick or on furlough and didnot vote.

The new rule, which this bill wouldoverturn, says that the mediationboard must count the votes amongthose employees who voted and mustdetermine the will of the workers ac-cording to the yes and no votesactually cast. Now, just as congres-sional elections turn on a majority ofthose who voted, union representationelections should reflect the will of thevoters.

This is a poison pill provision. A pro-vision to overturn that rule simply hasno business being in this legislation. Ithas nothing to do with safety. It hasnothing to do with improving our airtransportation system. And it has ab-

solutely nothing to do with making airservice more efficient. Rather, it is alightning rod of controversy, part of aconcerted assault, as weve seen toooften this year, on collective bar-gaining. Republicans and Democratsalike have opposed it. It barely sur-vived in the committee markup by asingle vote. This unprovoked and un-necessary provision has no place insuch critically needed legislation tokeep the FAA moving forward and theflying public safe.

When it comes to doing more withless, my friends on the other side of theaisle are correct about a few things, Ihave to admit, when it comes to the

pending legislation:More than 70,000 jobs lost with lessfunding for the AIP program. Morerisks to the traveling public with lesssafety personnel and initiatives. Moreassaults on collective bargaining rightsfor American workers. More controver-sial poison pill provisions with lessfocus on job creation and safety en-hancements.

Yep, thats doing more with less.With warning lights flashing and

alarm bells ringing, we cannot affordto go to sleep at the controls at suchan important time for our aviation sys-tem.

I reserve the balance of my time.Mr. MICA. Reminding everyone that

were borrowing 42 cents out of everydollar, I am pleased to yield 4 minutesto the chair of the Aviation Sub-committee, the gentleman from Wis-consin (Mr. PETRI).

Mr. PETRI. I thank my chairman.The legislation before us, H.R. 658,

reauthorizes the safety and researchprograms, operations, airport grants,and funding for the Federal AviationAdministration for budget years 2011through 2014. Its a 4-year reauthoriza-tion, with no earmarks, that will resultin savings and in greater efficiencies.

The bill funds the FAA at the fiscalyear 2008 funding levels and will save $4billion compared to the current levels.These funding levels recognize thestate of the Federal budget, but shouldnot affect vital safety functions.

The FAA Administrator is directedto achieve required cost savings with-out cutting safety critical activities.The bill requires the FAA to find andeliminate wasteful processes, duplica-tive programs, and unnecessary prac-tices.

b 1520

Given current economic times, thereis a need to put our limited resourceswhere they are most needed and usethem efficiently. Although we cannotdo all that we may have wanted to,when facing budget cuts, difficult deci-sions have to be made. We have workedto preserve the ability of the FAA toconduct its safety functionsits mostimportant mission and our number onepriority.

The bill will phase out the EssentialAir Service Program by 2013, resultingin $400 million in savings. The Essen-tial Air Service Program was origi-

nally created in 1970 as a temporaryprogram in the wake of airline deregu-lation. It was intended to allow air-ports to adapt to the change in theaviation industry and to plan accord-ingly. However, over the years, thisprogram has resulted in taxpayers hav-ing to pay millions of dollars in sub-sidies to provide air service to commu-nities even as passenger enplanementshave declined as other modes of trans-portation have become available.

With regard to NextGen, H.R. 658streamlines processes and provides suf-ficient funding, with FAA pursestringtightening, to fund NextGen projectsplanned in the next 4 years. H.R. 658

sets strict goals and benchmarks, andincludes other measures to accelerateNextGen in order to keep the momen-tum going. NextGen is critical to theU.S.s ability to compete in the globalaviation system by providing safer andmore efficient and environmentallyfriendly operations.

The bill allows for the expansion ofthe cost-effective Contract Tower Pro-gram, which has the potential to save,roughly, $400 million over 4 years. Inaddition, the legislation provides aclear and efficient process for the FAAto rapidly achieve benefits associatedwith the consolidation of old, obsoleteand unnecessary FAA facilities, with

enormous potential savings.I would like to commend ChairmanMICA for his efforts in developing thisbill and moving it through the com-mittee.

Also, while we may have differenceson a few provisions, there is much inthis bill that has bipartisan support. Ilook forward to continuing to workwith my aviation partner, Representa-tive JERRY COSTELLO, and with ourranking member, Representative NICKRAHALL, in getting agreement with theSenate so that we can finally send abill to the President.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R.658.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Illinois (Mr.COSTELLO), our leading Democrat onthe Aviation Subcommittee who hasbeen in the trenches, on the runways,and in the towers of this legislation formany years. He has been with the take-offs and the landings of so many exten-sions.

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the rankingmember for yielding to me and for hiskind remarks.

Madam Chair, we all agree that weneed a long-term FAA ReauthorizationAct. The FAA and the aviation commu-nity need stability and direction that amulti-year authorization will provide.However, its not this bill.

It is important for Members to knowthat H.R. 658 is a different FAA reau-thorization bill from the bipartisanlegislation that my colleagues and Iworked together on and that passed theHouse three times during the 110th and111th Congresses. That legislationwould have created jobs, improvedaviation safety, and provided the FAA

with the resources necessary to mod-ernize airport and air traffic control in-frastructure. However, while some as-pects of H.R. 658 were in prior House-passed bills and reflect some of my pri-orities, there are many troubling omis-sions and newly added provisions in thebill that are unacceptable.

I think we all agree that we mustmake every effort to be fiscally respon-sible and cut Federal spending where itmakes sense given the size of the def-icit. At the same time, we also have aresponsibility to the American peopleto keep our aviation system safe andsecure, to make needed improvementsto our infrastructure, to strengthen the

economy, to create jobs, and to remaincompetitive. However, I share the con-cerns of those in the industry that thislegislation includes funding cuts thatwill affect safety and put the flyingpublic at risk, devastate the FAAsNext Generation Air TransportationSystem air traffic control moderniza-tion effort, and ignore the need tostrengthen our economy by creatingjobs.

On the jobs issue, let me make itclear. Mr. RAHALL said it and Ill say itagain: This bill does not create jobs.Instead, it cuts, roughly, $2 billion overthe next 4 years in the FAAs AirportImprovement Program. The AIP pro-vides funding to airports across thecountry for infrastructure projects,such as runways and air traffic controltowers, and these projects create well-paying construction jobs. A $2 billiondecrease in funding in this bill meansabout 70,000 jobs will be lost. I will re-peat that: 70,000 jobs will be lost be-cause of the $2 billion cut in AIP funds.In fact, it leaves so little AIP discre-tionary funding available that even themost important projects, such as com-pleting runway safety areas by the con-gressionally mandated deadline, can-not be funded.



5/69

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSEH2134 March 31, 2011

Second, my Republican colleaguesargue that H.R. 658 directs the FAA toprioritize and to protect safety-relatedactivities within the bills reducedfunding levels. That sounds great, butall the evidence suggests that it cantbe done.

In February, the House Aviation Sub-committee held an FAA reauthoriza-tion hearing to listen to the aviationindustrys stakeholders. The unifiedmessage from the industry was loudand clear: Congress cannot roll backFAA funding to 2008 levels withoutharming safety programs or hamperingthe industry. President Bushs formerFAA administrator, Marion Blakey,stated, The prospect is really dev-astating to jobs and to our future if wereally have to roll back to 2008 levelsand stop NextGen in its tracks.

A jobs bill? I dont think soand nei-ther does the person who ran the FAAunder the Bush administration.

The FAA is primarily a safety agen-cy, and virtually all of its activitiesare safety-related. This Congress andthe American people need to knowthat, if we arbitrarily cut $1 billion ayear out of the FAAs budget, it abso-

lutely will affect safety. The agencywill not do more with less. It will beforced to do less with less, and cuts tothese funding levels will have seriousconsequences.

According to the FAA, the fundingreductions in this bill will cause theagency to furlough the aviation safetyworkforce by hundreds of employees.Fewer safety inspectors, engineers, andsupport personnel will adversely im-pact air traffic services, aviation safe-ty certifications and the implementa-tion of NextGen, which will end upcosting the taxpayers more in the longrun and cause our aviation industry tobe less competitive globally.

In addition, a reduction in the work-force will likely mean the delay of im-portant safety regulations, such asthose mandated by Congress in the newaviation safety law that was enactedlast year in a bipartisan vote in re-sponse to the Colgan Flight 3407 trag-edy in Buffalo, New York. Further, thislegislation will force important safety-related airport improvement projectsto be delayed or abandoned, such aswildlife hazard assessment. These typesof assessments would help airportsmitigate hazards like the one thatbrought down U.S. Airways Flight 1549in 2009 in which Captain Sullenbergerand First Officer Skiles were forced to

land in the Hudson River because aflock of geese damaged the planes en-gines.

As Mr. RAHALL indicated, just lastweek, two planes landed safely, with-out clearance, at Washington NationalAirport because, reportedly, a singleperson in charge at the control towerapparently fell asleep. While investiga-tions are ongoing, we have certainlyseen accidents in the past where airtraffic control staffing and fatiguewere a factor, such as in the August2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lex-ington, Kentucky.

I applaud Secretary LaHoods deci-sion to reevaluate staffing needsthroughout the country. Congress willalso need to closely examine air trafficcontrol staffing and fatigue going for-ward; but this incident should make itclear: Now is not the time to arbi-trarily cut almost $4 billion from FAAprograms and argue that the agencycan do more with less without compro-mising safety.

I know Mr. RAHALL and others have

talked about a provision in the legisla-tion that I believe, too, is a poisonpill. I will not go into all of the de-tails as we will have an amendmentlater; but let me just say that theLaTourette-Costello amendment, Ihope, will be supported by the Membersof this body. It is a poison pill provi-sion, section 903 in this legislation,that is certain to hold the legislationup in the Senate. There is no way thatI see the Senate will act on that provi-sion, and the White House, of course,has already issued a statement sayingthat the President will receive rec-ommendations from his advisers toveto the bill.

b 1530

If we are serious about passing along-term FAA bill, this provisionmust come out. If it remains in thebill, it will be rejected by the Senateand the White House.

Madam Chair, I will again sayand Ihave said many times beforeI willwork with my colleagues across theaisle to produce a fair bill that cannotonly pass the House but also pass theSenate and be signed into law by thePresident. H.R. 658 in its current formwill not pass the Senate or be signedinto law by the President and will re-quire significant changes before its en-acted.

Finally, Madam Chair, let me addressa couple of comments that my friendthe chairman of the full committee ledoff with in his remarks. He indicatedthat the Democrats when we were incharge for all of these years and wewerent able to pass legislation, we hadto have 17 extensions. I would remindmy friend that both in 2007, 2009, and in2010 we passed bipartisan legislation toreauthorize the FAA. It was our friendsin the Senate, in fairness, that held thelegislation up. It took them 3 years topass an FAA reauthorization bill, andin fact, as my friend from Florida willremember, it was the two Senatorsfrom Tennessee that held the bill up inthe Senate, and it was two issues thatwere held up in the Senate, and thoseissues involved both PFCs and DCA,the number of slots at WashingtonReagan National airport.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleaguesto vote no on H.R. 658, the FAA Re-authorization and Reform Act, andhope that after we reject this bill wecan go back and get a bill that accom-plishes what we set out to do in thelegislation, the bipartisan legislationthat we passed last year.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chair, can I in-quire as to the amount of time remain-ing on each side?

The CHAIR. The gentleman fromFlorida has 512 minutes remaining. Thegentleman from West Virginia has 4minutes remaining.

Mr. MICA. Madam Chair, I would askunanimous consent to yield 212 min-utes of my time to the gentleman fromPennsylvania and allow him to controlit for the purpose of a colloquy.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Withoutobjection, the gentleman from Penn-sylvania will control the time, 212 min-utes.

There was no objection.Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as you

know the EAS program was establishedto ensure that smaller communitiesacross the country, including those inmy congressional district, retain a linkto the national air transportation sys-tem. I also understand that we have aseverely constrained Federal budget,and I agree with the chairman that wemust do more with less and we need toensure that Federal programs actuallymake sense.

As a member of the committee, Ilook forward to working with thechairman to get this long overdue FAAbill to the Presidents desk for signa-ture, and I look forward to workingwith the chairman to make the neededchanges to the EAS program.

I would now yield 30 seconds to thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.THOMPSON).

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Es-sential Air Service assists over 140communities throughout the UnitedStates. EAS, Essential Air Service,works.

Let me talk about two airports, realquick. Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Itwas on EAS. It needed it to get theirdeployments up, and frankly, whatshappened, its been successful. Its nowoff of EAS. The program works. Thesefolks are now operating without that.

Dubois, Pennsylvania. Their deploy-ments are growing at this point, andthey are on the right track. The EAS isserving the correct purpose of what ithas. If EAS stops and ends, here iswhat ends in Dubois, Pennsylvania:private sector jobs totaling $9 millionin payroll and $28.8 million in economicactivity.

I just do my best to encourage thesupport of the Essential Air Service. Ido think its very important for ruralAmerica.

Mr. SHUSTER. I agree with the gen-tleman.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlemanfrom North Dakota (Mr. BERG).

Mr. BERG. This bill will ensure themuch-needed long-term stability anddevelopment of our Nations aviationinfrastructure. However, I am incred-ibly concerned about the provision inthis bill that would phase out EssentialAir Service. EAS is critical to largeStates like my own. Rural regions relyon EAS for vital air transportation. InNorth Dakota, airports like Jamestown



6/69


and Devils Lake would not be able toprovide critical air service without thissupport.

Ive spoken with Chairman MICA, andI understand the need for the processto keep moving forward with this bill.This bill contains many good provi-sions that I support. I also know howvital rural access to essential aviationis. So I would ask the gentlemen fromFlorida and Pennsylvania if theydcommit to working with me and other

Members to support the EAS program.Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gen-tleman from North Dakota.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleladyfrom South Dakota (Mrs. NOEM).

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentlemanfor yielding.

Madam Chair, we have spent the last3 months debating the need to getspending under control, and its a goodthing. Thats why my constituents sentme here, and thats what I plan to con-tinue to do.

But we also need to remember thatwe need to look to get spending undercontrol and help our economy and cre-ate jobs. A large part of that is pro-

viding certainty for the American peo-ple, and like many of my colleagues, Irepresent the rural parts of America.Many of them are concerned with theuncertainty that removing this pro-gram, Essential Air Service, too quick-ly would bring. Many of the commu-nities in rural America, includingthose in South Dakota, that rely onthis program use it as an economic de-velopment tool. They understand thatthey wont be using EAS forever.

But Im concerned, Madam Chair,that we may not be providing themwith the time that they need to planunder this bill. This issue deserves ad-ditional consideration. I hope that as

we move forward with conference con-versations with our Senate colleaguesthat this is given much more carefulconsideration, and I look forward toworking on it with them.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentle-lady from South Dakota.

I look forward to working with thechairman, the gentlelady from SouthDakota, and the gentlemen from Penn-sylvania and North Dakota as the billmoves forward on EAS.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I woulddefer to the Committee on Ways andMeans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would claimthe time for Ways and Means.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Or-egon is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair-man, I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

I have appreciated the debate here onthe floor talking about the essentialservices that are included in the FAAreauthorization, but sadly, some of theconsequences are for significant cuts invital servicesI hear some of myfriends talking about Essential AirService. It impacts my State. Werelooking at significant reduction in air-port construction, and as weve heard,

it would stop NextGen, as the formeradministrator under the Bush adminis-tration was quoted as saying, in itstracks. But Madam Chairman, itdoesnt need to be this way. We can, infact, respect the concerns about notadding to the deficit without short-changing these essential programs.

Our friends in the Senate, have pro-vided one of those rare occasions wherethe other body has shown us the way.They have passed in the last year, with

93 votes last year and 878 votes al-ready in this session, a reauthorizationthat actually adds revenues, but notgeneral taxes, but theres been anagreement that has reached over-whelming consensus. You dont get 87votes out of the other body for raisingrevenue unless theres broad accept-ance with the industry, with those whoare regulated and those who are con-cerned about preserving these essentialservices. Theres an agreement withina broad swath of the industry to in-crease the fuel tax, a user fee for thepeople who benefit.

Another critical area that the bill issilent on, and in fact we havent ad-

justed for 10 years, is the ceiling on thepassenger facility charge. This isnteven a tax that Congress imposes. It issimply an authorization for what localauthorities can decide makes sense fortheir vital programs.

Madam Chair, we dont have tochoose between tens of thousands ofjobs lost, putting the traveling publicat risk, delaying essential efficiencyimprovements, and cuts to vital pro-grams or increasing the deficit. We cansimply move forward with simple, com-monsense, broadly agreed upon pro-posals to adjust revenues to have theflexibility, to make the investmentthats going to make a difference for

years to come, and make the difficultjob of the chair and the ranking mem-ber and the two subcommittees, tomake that difficult job much easier.

b 1540

I reserve the balance of my time.Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am

pleased to yield 3 minutes to the verydistinguished gentleman from Ten-nessee (Mr. DUNCAN), the chair of theHighways Subcommittee of the Trans-portation and Infrastructure Com-mittee.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thankthe gentleman from Florida for yield-ing me this time.

I rise in support of this bill and com-mend Chairman MICA and ChairmanPETRI because, as a former chair of theAviation Subcommittee, I know howdifficult it is to bring all the com-peting interests together to produce abill such as this.

However, I would like to raise oneissue that I still have some concernsabout. It has been brought to my atten-tion by a former outstanding Memberof this body, Jim Coyne, a former Con-gressman from Pennsylvania who hasbeen the long-time head of the Na-tional Air Transportation Association,

that some airports are engaging in ac-tivities that compete with privatelyowned fixed-base operators. I did notfile an amendment because the chair-man has graciously agreed to hold aformal roundtable discussion aboutthis matter and begin working to makesure that this does not become com-monplace.

I hope that this is not a trend thatwill continue because privately ownedbusinesses should not have to compete

with the government or quasi-govern-mental agencies, such as airport au-thorities, which do not pay taxes andare not subject to all of the rules andregulations that private businesses are.

Each time there has been a WhiteHouse Conference on Small Businessand they have held one on averageevery 5 years since 1955either thenumber one concern or one of the topthree concerns at all these WhiteHouse Conferences on Small Businesshas been freedom from governmentcompetition.

Madam Chair, since the Eisenhoweradministration in 1955, it has been U.S.policyor was supposed to have been

that government should not start orcarry on any commercial activity toprovide a service or product for its ownuse if such a product or service can beprocured from private enterprisethrough ordinary business channels.So that is my concern, and we aregoing to continue working on that.

I also want to mention a very com-monsense amendment that will be filedlater by Mr. SHUSTER on behalf of my-self and Mr. MEEHAN, my two col-leagues from Pennsylvania. Thisamendment that we will be filing doestwo very simple things: it states thatthe FAA should not use a one-size-fits-all approach when considering new reg-

ulations. It also requires the FAA totake into consideration the cost it isimposing on the private sector whenissuing new regulations.

This amendment simply codifiesmuch of an executive order issued byPresident Obama on January 18 of thisyear. Quoting from the Presidents ex-ecutive order, it said our regulatorysystem must be based on the bestavailable science. It must allow forpublic participation and an open ex-change of ideas. It must promote pre-dictability and reduce uncertainty. Itmust identify and use the best, mostinnovative, and least burdensome toolsfor achieving regulatory ends. It must

take into account benefits and costs,both quantitative and qualitative.

In addition, FAA AdministratorRandy Babbitt has stated that a one-size-fits-all approach to rulemakingcan make aviation less safe. There aredifferent segments of the aviation in-dustry that face very different chal-lenges. I believe that by tailoring theregulations toward these different seg-ments of the industry, we can makeaviation safer by helping address thedifferent challenges that differenttypes of businesses face.



7/69


Finally, I would like to say that Iagree with the chairman about over-staffing with regard to our aviationregulation. I am amazed, Madam Chair,at how many Members and private citi-zens have expressed concerns aboutTSA overstaffing and have mentionedthe lines of thousands standing around.The number of screeners has gone up,as I understand it, from 16,000 prior to9/11 to 61,000 now. That is simply far,far too many; and that needs to be

looked into. And I know the chairmanintends to do that. I urge my col-leagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair,may I inquire as to the amount of timeremaining for Ways and Means.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Or-egon has 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, Iwould ask unanimous consent thatthese 2 minutes be assigned to the gen-tleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL).

The CHAIR. Without objection, thegentleman from West Virginia willcontrol the time.

There was no objection.Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO), thelead Democrat on our Highways andTransit Subcommittee.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Unfortunately, thislegislation, under the guise of beingfiscally prudent, is going to delay vitalsafety and capacity needs and enhance-ments to our aviation system, con-demning future air travelers to evenmore congestion, more delays, morewasted fuel. Its going to cut an al-ready inadequate inspection forceagain, threatening safety. And thenthere are other provisions that areproblematic.

The gentleman from Arizona mayask for a vote on an amendment tochange the very fair and competitiveslot language for National Airport inthe bill into an unfair earmarked anti-competitive amendment that wouldgive potentially 70 percent of long dis-tance flights out of National Airport totwo airlines, about 50 percent to oneairline. And he calls it competition.Now I dont know what planet hesfrom, but thats not competition whereI come from, an underserved west coastmarket that has very few opportunitiesfor my people to access National Air-port.

And then, finally, a labor provisionthat was thrown in rather gratuitouslythat says that anyone who chooses notto vote in an election will be countedas a no. The interesting thing is, ifwe had that same standard for elec-tions to the United States House ofRepresentatives, not one single Mem-ber now sitting would have won theirelection because its not just the peoplewho are registered to vote. Its any-body who is eligible to vote. And ifthey dont vote or dont register tovote, they count as a no. I mean,some people might be happy, therewould be no House of Representatives.

But at least the sitting Members wouldnot be here. They want to apply thatstandard to representation for laborunions. Thats incredibly unfair, short-sighted, and would overrule the Na-tional Labor Relations Board.

Finally, Essential Air Service. Weare supposed to have a system of uni-versal air transport. It is critical tomany small and developing commu-nities, rural communities like I rep-resent, to have a continuation of Es-

sential Air Service.Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I un-derstand that the Ways and MeansCommittee is in markup. I would liketo ask unanimous consent to claimtheir time, I believe that is 5 minuteson our side, that the Transportationand Infrastructure majority be per-mitted to claim that time.

The CHAIR. Without objection, thegentleman from Florida will controlthe 5 minutes allotted to the Ways andMeans Committee.

There was no objection.Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am so

pleased to yield 3 minutes to the dis-tinguished gentleman from North Caro-

lina (Mr. COBLE

), one of the seniormembers of the T&I Committee and aleader on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COBLE. I thank the chairman foryielding.

I rise in support of this bill, which isfinancially sound and with no tax orfee increases. Simply put, the measureis long overdue, and the aviation sectorneeds certainty. We need to finish thetask at hand. The managers amend-ment considered later today includeslanguage that will provide clarity formusicians who travel with small in-struments. And Im not talking,Madam Chair, about stand-up basses orharps.

Current policy varies from airline toairline as to what instruments are per-mitted onboard. The amendmentstrikes a delicate balance to ensuremusicians can attain certainty andsafety is ensured. I am appreciative tothe gentleman from Florida (Mr. MICA)and the gentleman from West Virginia(Mr. RAHALL) and to all staff whoworked with me on this provision, andI thank them for its inclusion.

I also support an amendment offeredby the gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. SHUSTER) that will help FAA regu-lations conform to reasonableness andreality. This amendment requires theFAA to recognize distinctions betweensectors of the aviation industry andtailor regulations to each sectorsfacts. It also conforms FAA rule-making to a number of good-govern-ment principles, such as cost-benefitanalysis, use of the best available in-formation, and consideration of regu-latory impacts on the economy.

Finally, later today there will likely be vig-orous debate on recent action by the NationalMediation Board on labor elections. Underprevious guidelines, a majority of the eligibleelectorate must vote in favor of unionization.Under the new rules, this majority is definedby those who actually vote in elections. This

action overturns precedent that has been inplace for the past 70 years that worked well.This issue is about fairness to all parties and,in my opinion, the appropriate way forward ispast policy, not those in place today.

b 1550

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. NADLER), a distinguishedmember of our Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, thisbill drastically cuts funding for FAAprograms, threatening the developmentof the NextGen air traffic control sys-tem and requiring the furlough of hun-dreds of safety-related employees.

The bill also would change the Na-tional Mediation Boards electionrules. Airline and railroad workerswould no longer vote for union rep-resentation by a majority of those vot-ing but by a majority of all those eligi-ble to vote. It would be extremely un-democratic to thus count votes notcast as no votes. No election in anyfree country does so. And I urge mycolleagues to support the LaTourette-Costello amendment to strike this pro-vision.

I also oppose provisions in the man-agers amendment providing liabilityimmunity for the airlines and limita-tions on discovery. Section 336 wouldblock access to safety-related datathrough discovery and would block useof such information in court. It is vir-tually unheard of for Congress to sim-ply declare that broad categories of in-formation cannot be obtained by aparty to a lawsuit or even used as evi-dence in a legal proceeding.

Section 337 provides immunity to air-lines and their agents for any type ofdamage resulting from an event con-templated by a safety managementsystem. These systems are designed toanalyze virtually every kind of risk, sogranting this immunity would make itvirtually impossible to hold an airlineor individual accountable for neg-ligence causing almost any accident.This liability shield would deprive in-jured victims of their rights and wouldalso preempt State tort law.

We havent held any hearings on thisin the Transportation Committee or inthe Judiciary Committee, which,frankly, has jurisdiction and the properexpertise with which to analyze suchgrants of immunity, and we haventheard any evidence to justify thesedangerous restrictions.

I find it hard to believe that anybodythinks that airlines should be allowedto act with negligence and be free fromliability should you or I or any otherAmerican be injured or maimed orkilled as a result of the negligence.

For all these reasons, I must opposethe bill.

However, I do want to thank Chair-man MICA and Congressman COBLE forincluding language in the managersamendment to strengthen the provi-sions guaranteeing the right to carryor check musical instruments onto an



8/69


airline. This is an issue Ive worked onfor many years, and I am very pleasedto see it finally moving forward.

I hope that we can continue to findareas of agreement, since passage of along-term FAA authorization bill islong overdue. I look forward to work-ing with my colleagues in that spirit.But until the funding levels are in-creased, the safety and worker provi-sions are in place, the poison pill provi-sions about union votes are removed, I

cannot support this bill.Mr. MICA. Might I inquire as to howmuch time remains?

The CHAIR. The gentleman fromFlorida has 312 minutes remaining. Thegentleman from West Virginia has 2minutes remaining.

Mr. MICA. I would like to reserve mytime that I acquired on behalf of theWays and Means Committee to closeand, I believe, if its appropriate, havethe Science Committee, which I thinkis yielded 5 minutes on each side, goforward prior to my close.

Mr. HALL. I yield myself such timeas I may consume.

The CHAIR. The gentleman fromTexas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HALL. Madam Chair, I rise instrong support of H.R. 658, legislationreauthorizing the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration through fiscal year 2014.

Title X of H.R. 658 reauthorizes theagencys research and developmentprograms. It was drafted by the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Tech-nology as H.R. 970, the Federal Avia-tion Research and Development Reau-thorization Act of 2011. On March 17,the committee met, amended and ap-proved H.R. 970. The rule accom-panying H.R. 658 fully incorporates thelanguage from our amended bill intotitle X, which we support.

With regard to funding, title X ad-heres to the same principles of thelarger bill, providing authorization lev-els for the Research, Engineering andDevelopment account at the fiscal year2008 level for the fiscal years 2012through 2014. For fiscal year 2011, theauthorization is a hybrid of currentspending under the continuing resolu-tion and the FY 2008 level.

Further, our bill authorizes spendingfor research and development activitiesthat are funded through the agencysFacilities and Equipment and Airportsaccounts. None of our members relishcutting R&D funding, but members onour side of the aisle were passionate intheir belief, as I am, that we must re-duce Federal spending, and the FAA,like every other Federal agency, mustbear some burden and some measure ofburden.

Research and development plays acritical role at FAA, providing theagency with the tools and technologiesit needs to carry out a diverse set ofmissions. The largest R&D programcurrently underway supports develop-ment of a whole host of technologiesrequired to ensure successful deploy-ment of the Next Generation AirTransportation System.

R&D also is fundamental to FAAsrole in the safety of air travel, givingthe agency the insight and data re-quired to develop tools and policiesguiding the introduction, use and themaintenance of new materials and sys-tems incorporated in the modern jetaircraft.

These technologies are necessary ifwere to continue improving the na-tional airspace systems safety, effi-ciency and security, especially consid-

ering the critical role now played byaviation in our Nations economy andpublic safety.

In addition, title X directs FAA toundertake research in a number ofareas, including the safe operation ofunmanned aircraft systems in the na-tional airspace, research on runwaysand engineered material restrainingsystems, research on developing un-leaded fuel for the use in general avia-tion piston engine aircraft and on thedevelopment and certification of jetfuel from alternative sources, and re-search on the effects of aviation on theenvironment.

There are many other activities too

numerous to mention here, but I didwant to provide examples to Membersof the broad sweep of FAA-sponsoredR&D.

Finally, I understand ChairmanMICAs amendment offered to the billseeks to modify certain provisionswhile also adding a few. A specific pro-vision amends existing law found intitle 51 of the United States Code re-garding the Office of Commercial SpaceTransportation. I support the goal ofthis language with the understandingthat the inclusion of this language doesnot alter the jurisdiction of my com-mittee on this issue and that the chair-man of the Transportation and Infra-

structure Committee will work with usto ensure this provision or similar pro-visions are preserved, they are pre-served as we continue to move throughthe legislative process on H.R. 658, in-cluding any negotiations or conferencewith the other body.

Madam Chair, in closing, I want tourge all Members to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I yield

myself such time as I may consume.The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from

Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.Ms. EDWARDS. The need for a long-

term Federal Aviation Administration,FAA, reauthorization act is clear; butH.R. 658 reauthorizes the FAA for 4years, and the arbitrary spending cutsthat our Republican colleagues haveimposed on the agency in H.R. 658 willdevastate FAAs ability to improve fly-ing safety and to modernize the Na-tions air traffic control system. Forthis reason, unfortunately, I cannotsupport the bill.

H.R. 658 proposes a 23 percentan un-believable 23 percentcut to FAAs re-search, engineering and developmentaccounts from the funding levels en-acted by Congress for fiscal year 2010.These cuts are not related in any way

to a lack of need for the research. Infact, the committee, in multiple hear-ings, acknowledged the need for the re-search. The Congress heard expert tes-timony from witnesses who havestressed the importance of investing inboth research and development and inthe NextGen modernization initiative,and have warned of the negative im-pact that cuts will have on the Na-tions air traffic control system andthe flying public.

To cut FAAs R&D efforts so dras-tically while were trying to recoverfrom a recession and while oil pricesevery day climb higher risks stiflingthis industry and the millions of jobs itsupports.

But I also want to be clear that theresearch and development work that isdone at FAA helps to protect the safe-ty of all the flying public. These cutsto aviation safety-related researchhave a high probability of reducing thesafety of our air transformation sys-tem. These effects may not be felttoday or tomorrow, but they will befelt, and they will have serious con-sequences for the flying public.

Madam Chair, Democratic membersof the committee attempted to preventthe cuts to three key safety researchinitiatives at our committees markupof H.R. 970. These amendments, ifadopted, would have increased the 4-year authorization amount by a totalof $16 million, or less than 3 percent ofthe $600 million authorization in thebilla small amount for such a hugepayoff.

b 1600

As noted in the committee markup,these costs really pale in comparisonto even a single major aircraft accidentboth in terms of money and the hor-rible loss of life. Unfortunately, ourRepublican colleagues voted to rejecteach of these key safety amendmentsand research amendments that go tosafety. And the choice couldnt be moreclear. Our colleagues chose to makethe flying public less safe in order tomeet a very arbitrary goal for cuttingFederal spending.

I share our colleagues concern aboutthe Nations deficit, but we reject anynotion that addressing the Nationsdeficit requires us to make our Na-tions transportation system less safe.

As we move forward in the negotia-tions with the Senate over a final FAAreauthorization, I remain committedto ensuring the safety of our Nationsair transportation system and hopethat our Republican colleagues willjoin in this effort.

In conclusion, I would like to speakto a measure in the provision of the un-derlying bill that has me greatly trou-bled, and that has to do with unionelections. It is staggering to me thatwe have decided that we are going tocount not voting as a no vote.

I just took a look at the winningnumbers for our leadership. Our Speak-er was elected in 2010 with 142,700 votes.His opponents and those who werent



9/69


registered totaled 482,170 votes. If wehad used this same theory, this samestrategy for our own elections and forthe election of Speaker BOEHNER, hewould have lost that election by 339,000votes. And that goes for each of us. Andperhaps the public wants that. Maybewe should all be counting nonvoting asno votes, and then we could com-pletely change this House of Represent-atives. But that is not the way we runelections, and that is not the way we

should run union elections. So it is un-fortunate that the majority has de-cided to put this poison pill into theunderlying legislation that makes itunsupportable on this side of the aisle.

With that, I would ask unanimousconsent to yield the balance of mytime to the ranking member on Trans-portation and Infrastructure, the gen-tleman from West Virginia (Mr. RA-HALL).

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. BASS of NewHampshire). Is there objection to therequest of the gentlewoman fromMaryland?

There was no objection.Ms. EDWARDS. And how much time

remains?The Acting CHAIR. There is 30 sec-onds remaining for the gentlewomanfrom Maryland.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield tothe gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.PALAZZO) such time as he may con-sume.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman isrecognized for 1 minute.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I riseto join Mr. HALL, chairman of theHouse Science, Space, and TechnologyCommittee, to urge all Members tosupport passage of H.R. 658, the FAAReauthorization and Reform Act of2011. This is a good and balanced billthat will help advance important mod-ernization of safety programs at theFAA, and do so in a fiscally responsiblemanner.

The Space and Aeronautics Sub-committee, which I chair, held an over-sight hearing on February 16 that fo-cused on FAAs research and develop-ment activities. Witnesses from FAA,industry, an external advisory panel toFAA, and the DOT Inspector Generalspoke in general agreement about theimportance of FAAs research and de-velopment portfolio, with the non-agency witnesses also offering con-structive suggestions for improvement.

Of chief importance to the agencyand industry is development and imple-mentation of the Next Generation AirTransportation System program.NextGen will modernize our Nationsair traffic control system, increasingits capacity, safety, security, and effi-ciency. But this ambitious programwill not succeed without a well struc-tured, well managed research and de-velopment program that will deliverappropriate technologies when andwhere they are required.

To offer a few examples, currentlythere is NextGen-related research fo-cused on increasing our weather pre-

diction capability, research to betterunderstand human factors in a highlyautomated environment, wake turbu-lence prediction, and research on air-craft technologies.

What we are asking FAA to do is toprioritize and make choices. Most folksin Washington and at home acknowl-edge that we cannot afford business asusual by routinely increasing Federalspending year after year. This bill is aresponsible approach to pushing the

FAA forward, but doing so wisely.Mr. Chair, I rise to join with Mr. HALL, Chair-man of the House Science, Space, and Tech-nology Committee, to urge all Members tosupport passage of H.R. 658, the FAA Reau-thorization and Reform Act of 2011. This is agood and balanced bill that will help advanceimportant modernization and safety programsat the FAA, and to do so in a fiscally respon-sible manner.

The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee,which I chair, held an oversight hearing onFebruary 16 that focused on FAAs researchand development activities. Witnesses fromFAA, industry, an external advisory panel toFAA, and the DOT Inspector General spoke ingeneral agreement about the importance ofFAAs research and development portfolio,with the non-agency witnesses also offeringconstructive suggestions for improvement.

Of chief importance to the agency and in-dustry is development and implementation ofthe Next Generation Air Transportation Sys-tem program. NextGen will modernize our na-tions air traffic control system, increasing itscapacity, safety, security, and efficiency, butthis ambitious program will not succeed with-out a well-structured, well-managed researchand development program that will deliver ap-propriate technologies when and where theyrerequired. To offer a few examples, currentlythere is NextGen-related research focused onincreasing our weather prediction capability;research to better understand human factorsin a highly automated environment; wake tur-bulence prediction; and research on aircrafttechnologies. Ultimately, tens of billions of dol-lars are at stake both by government and in-dustry if were to enable the full realization ofNextGen, and ensure its success the agencyneeds a strong R&D program.

Title X of H.R. 658 also supports FAAs tra-ditional safety research, and it directs theagencyin coordination with NASAto as-sess the environmental impact of aviation. Tobe clear, the environmental research will helpFAA better measure the effects of aviation,and where warranted, to develop technologiesto mitigate them. For example, using biomass-based feedstock to develop jet fuel. But justas importantly, an environmental assessmentwill also give industry a baseline against whichprogress on impacts can be measured, whichis a metric we do not have today.

There are some Members who may arguethat this bill is counterproductive because it re-duces FAAs authorization levels, asserting,for instance, that it imperils public safety byeliminating safety-related research. To thosewho raise such claims, I respectfully disagree.In this bill, were not eliminating any program.What we are asking FAA to do is to prioritizeand make choices. Most folks in Washingtonand at home acknowledge that we cannot af-ford business as usual by routinely increasingfederal spending year after year. This bill is a

responsible approach to pushing the FAA for-ward, but doing so wisely.

The Acting CHAIR. All time has ex-pired for the Committee on Science,Space, and Technology.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, howmuch time is remaining?

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemanfrom West Virginia has 212 minutes re-maining, and the gentleman from Flor-ida has 312 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield

1 minute to the gentlewoman fromTexas (Ms. JACKSON LEE).Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me

applaud the work of this committee,and particularly Mr. RAHALL and Mr.COSTELLO, whom we work very closelywith. I serve as a ranking member onthe Transportation Security Com-mittee, and I cant imagine a more per-fect fit than the question of safety andsecurity for our traveling public, and Ithank the chairman of the full com-mittee and others associated with thislegislation, however disappointed I amin having to come to the floor and raisequestions about our next steps. And Iam particularly devastated about the

cuts in the FAAs Next Generation AirTraffic System, the NextGen.Whenever you think of air traffic

controllers, I want you to think ofthem as first responders, of which Iwill discuss in an amendment that Ihave regarding the issue of ensuringthe kind of staffing needs necessary toengage in security. But further, since Ihave one of the largest airports in thecountry, Bush Intercontinental Air-port, of which we were proud to name,I am disappointed that the FAA Im-provement Program has been cut and,therefore, construction improving run-ways, taxiways, terminals. Theres onething about getting up and getting in

the air and having that beautiful feel-ing. But what about coming down andnot being able to work?

The Acting CHAIR. The time of thegentlewoman has expired.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield an additional 15seconds.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. And letme say I am disappointed that wewould have a Shuster amendment thatwould really put a dent in the pilot fa-tigue rulemaking. That is very impor-tant. And then of course the issue deal-ing with the Costello-LaTouretteamendment, which I support. How canyou win by 70,000, then you count thepeople who didnt vote, and you lose by150,000? Lets be fair. Lets have a billthat responds to the needs of all.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate thesincere efforts of the chairman of mycommittee Mr. MICA, the sub-committee chairman Mr. PETRI, andour ranking Democrat on the sub-committee, Mr. COSTELLO.

There have been serious efforts towork in a bipartisan way, but I fullyrealize that on the majoritys side a lotof these decisions, a lot of these fund-ing levels are not necessarily made by



10/69


the chairman of the full committee andthe chairman of the subcommittee, butrather by other forces that are outthere on the majoritys side. I also rec-ognize that a lot of these decisions aremade at levels higher than the chair-mans, at levels higher than even thatat which airplanes fly. So this is notall necessarily the chairmans fault.

I think it would be fair to warn thebody that the administration hasissued their position on this legisla-

tion. And they say that if the fundingwere appropriated at the levels pro-posed in the bill, the safe and efficientmovement of air traffic, on the groundand in the air, would be degraded todayand in the future.

And, more importantly, the adminis-tration has reiterated its opposition tothe poison pill labor provisions in thisbill, and has said if the President ispresented with a bill that would notsafeguard the ability of railroad andairline workers to decide whether ornot they would be represented by aunion based upon a majority of the bal-lots cast in election, or that would de-grade safe and efficient air travel, his

senior advisers would recommend thathe veto the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Housedo not accept this bill. We have evenfurther degrading amendments to safe-ty that will come later in the amend-ment process that I want to referencevery quickly at this point, includingone that would allow more flyovers atsports events.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of thegentleman has expired.

Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman anadditional 15 seconds.

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate it. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

This would go against a ban insti-

tuted after 9/11 that prohibited flyoversat sports events for safety reasons. Sothat comes later on in the amendmentprocess. I think it just shows thethreats that we are posing to the safetyof the air traveling public if this billwere to pass as it is. I urge its opposi-tion.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, as we closedebate on the long overdue FAA reau-thorization, first I have to thank mycopartner in this, the gentleman fromWest Virginia (Mr. RAHALL). He is agentleman. It is great to work withhim. I have to thank also Mr. PETRI,the chair of the Aviation Sub-committee, he and Mr. COSTELLO, twogentlemen who have worked hard tobring the bill to this point. It has beena struggle for 4 years, and now, to gethere. But I am pleased that we are atthis point. There are differences ofopinion about the bill.

I have to take a moment to thankstaff on both sides. They are great, andhave been working together to get usto this point. And we will debate theamendments and the differences, andthen we will hopefully pass this and getpeople working and get our aviationpolicies secure for the Nation.

b 1610

I have to thank Mr. HALL, the chair-man of the Science and TechnologyCommittee, for his provisions to makecertain that research in aviation isdone. Mr. CAMP brought a proposal herefrom Ways and Means that doesntraise taxes, that doesnt increase fees.There are no passenger facility in-creases. So those kinds of things.

We brought a bill. It does have $59billion over 4 yearsthis isnt small

potatoesand it can, if properly ex-pended and wisely applied, can do wellfor the Nation, ensuring safety in pro-grams that are so important and mov-ing jobs that are so critical. 9.3 percentof our economy depends on this legisla-tion.

The colloquy between Mr. SHUSTERand the gentlelady from South Dakota(Mrs. NOEM) and the gentleman fromNorth Dakota (Mr. BERG) and the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. THOMP-SON) on Essential Air Service, I under-stand their concerns and their greatadvocacy for their constituents andmaking certain that service is there.We do have a sunset provision. We will

work with them and we will do ourbest. But I agreed to work with them,and I reconfirm that here.

Finally, letters of support. You heardthe other side state that nobody sup-ports this. I have a list of 45 major as-sociations, every major organization inthe aviation industry, and I will sub-mit that for the record. On the ques-tion of AIA support, I have a letter ofsupport from Marion Blakey, showingtheir support of this legislation.

In conclusion, we are doing heresomething that needs to be done. Thisis very important. It has been leftaside. Seventeen extensions. When theother side, of course, had huge majori-

ties, they could have done this almostby unanimous consent with the Presi-dent.

Now, the President threatened toveto this. I am not going to say, Makemy day, but I want to say that this isa fair provision, fair to everyone inlabor, fair to everyone who wants tojoin a labor union, to keep 70 years oflaw that has been on the books and notchange it because you have jerry-rigged the membership of the NationalMediation Board. So lets be fair, fairgoing in and fair coming out. This pro-vision that we have in the bill createsfairness.

BROAD SUPPORT FOR H.R. 658FAA

REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011Aerospace Industries Association (AIA);

General Aviation Manufacturers Association(GAMA); Air Transport Association (ATA);Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA);International Association of Fire Chiefs; AirMedical Operators Association (AMOA); As-sociation of Air Medical Services (AAMS);Aeronautical Repair Station Association(ARSA); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; CargoAirline Association (CAA); National BusinessAviation Association (NBAA); National AirTransport Association (NATA); National AirCarrier Association (NACA); Association ofUnmanned Vehicle Systems International(AUVSI); Alliance for Worker Freedom;

AdvaMed; Airforwarders Association; Asso-ciation of Home Appliance Manufacturers;AT&T; Boston Scientific; Consumer Elec-tronics Association.; Consumer ElectronicsRetailers Coalition; CTIAThe Wireless As-sociation.

Dangerous Goods Advisory Council; DHL;Express Association of America; FedEx Cor-poration; Garmin; Hewlett-Packard; Inter-national Air Transport Association (IATA);Information Technology Industry Council;Johnson Controls; Motorola Mobility; Motor-ola Solutions; National Association of Manu-facturers; National Electrical Manufacturers

Association; National Retail Federation;Power Tool Institute; PRBAThe Recharge-able Battery Association; Retail IndustryLeaders Association; Samsung SDI; SecurityIndustry Association; Sony; UPS; The Inter-national Air Cargo Association.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,Arlington, VA, February 16, 2011.

Hon. JOHN L. MICA,Chairman, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives.

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL,Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure, House of Representa-

tives.CHAIRMAN MICA, AND RANKING MEMBER RA-

HALL; I write today to express the AerospaceIndustries Associations (AIA) support forthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011(H.R. 658), as introduced by the House Trans-portation and Infrastructure Aviation Sub-committee February 11, 2011.

During my February 9 testimony, I out-lined a number of initiatives the FAA mayundertake to reduce duplicative efforts,measure the effectiveness of existing proc-esses, and capitalize on the experience andefficiency of the private sector. These effi-ciencies are paramount to ensuring theFAAs ability to maintain the highest levelof safety, provide oversight responsibilitieswithout delaying manufacturers ability tocompete internationally, and aggressivelyadvance the Next Generation Air Transpor-tation System (NextGen).

AIA is pleased with the Committees deci-sion to address key policies such as environ-mental streamlining, third party perform-

ance based navigation procedure design, andthe establishment of NextGen performancemetrics. Further, the Committees acknowl-edgement of the benefits of bilateral avia-tion safety agreements and a risk based in-spection regime when applied to repair sta-tion oversight cannot be overstated. Thesecarefully negotiated agreements increaseFAAs efficiency, enhance FAAs inter-national safety oversight and help protectU.S. jobs.

FAA is the global gold standard for avia-tion safety and standards. U.S. civil aviationmanufacturers are the world leaders in ad-vanced aerospace technology, innovative sat-ellite-based procedures and airspace design.The policies outlined in H.R. 658 permit theFAA to not only pursue efficiencies for theflying public but also protect the investment

of the American taxpayer.If AIA can provide any technical assistance

or answer any questions, please do not hesi-tate to call me directly.

Sincerely,MARION C. BLAKEY.

GENERAL AVIATIONMANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC.

STATEMENT OF PETE BUNCE ON INTRODUCTIONOF H.R. 658, THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ANDREFORM ACT OF 2011

We welcome the leadership of ChairmenMica and Petri in developing and intro-ducing this legislation and look forward to



11/69

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSEH2140 March 31, 2011working with them and ranking membersRahall and Costello on its passage. Therehave been far too many delays in reauthor-izing the programs of the FAA and we hopethat timely action will continue. H.R. 658contains many provisions important to gen-eral aviation manufacturers including:

(1) strengthening the ability of FAA to im-plement the procedures, policies, and tech-nology necessary for the success of NextGen;

(2) enhancing repair station safety over-sight through a risk-based approach andleveraging safety resources efficiently;

(3) supporting a critical safety agreement

between the U.S. and Europe;(4) reviewing and reforming existing FAAcertification processes to streamline andmake more efficient the current systemwithout compromising safety; and

(5) establishing an FAA-industry group toensure

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	judicial-watch-inc
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Congressional Record on the Topic

Documents