d that gaddafi in an effort to engrasheate himself with the west in general and with america specifically accepted a market based economic program led by the very harsh structural adjustment remedies of the i.m.f. and the world bank. . this led to the wholesale privatization of estate enterprises, contributing to unemployment in libya rising to over 20%. cnn reported on december 19, 2003, that libya acknowledged having a nuclear program, pledged to destroy weapons of

mass destruction and pledged to allow international inspections. this was a decision which president george w. bush has praised saying, gaddafi's actions, quote, made our country and our world safer. unquote. we're told that gaddafi is in breach of the u.n. security council resolutions but now our own secretary of state is reportedly considering arming the rebels. an act which would be a breach of the united nations security council resolution which established an arms embargo.

we are told we went to war as the request of and with the support of the arab league. but the secretary general of the arab league gam began asking questions -- began asking questions immediately after the imposition of the no-fly zone stating that what was happening in libya, and i quote, differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of civilians. unquote. ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary general, has also expressed concern over the protection of civilians even as allied bombing continued during the international conference on libya in england this week.

stating that the u.n., and this is a quote, continues to receive deeply disturbing reports about the lack of protection of civilians, including various abuses of human rights by the parties to the conflict. he was alluding to possible human rights abuses by libyan rebel forces. even the secretary general of nato, an organization which the united states founded and generally controls, expressed concern. saying, quote, we're not in little bitia to arm people but to protect people, unquote. so i ask, is this truly a humanitarian intervention? what is humanitarian about

providing to one side of the conflict the ability to wage war against the other side of a conflict which will inevitably trigger a civil war making all of libya a grave yard? the administration has told us incredibly they don't really know who the rebels are, but they're considering arming them nonetheless. the fact that they're even thinking about arming these rebels makes one think the administration knows exactly who the rebels are.

while a variety of individuals and institutions may comprise the so-called opposition in libya, in fact one of the most significant organizations is the national front for the salvation of libya, along with its military arm, the libyan national army. it was the national front's call for opposition to the gaddafi regime in february which was a catalyst of the conflict. which precipitated the humanitarian crisis which is now used to justify armed intervention. but, mr. speaker, how spontaneous was this rebellion? the congressional research service in 1987 analyzed the

libyan opposition. here's what the congressional research service wrote, and i quote, over 20 opposition groups exist outside libya. the most important in 1987 was the national front, formed in october, 1981. this national front claimed responsibility for a daring attack on gaddafi's headquarters on may 8, 1984. although the coop failed and gaddafi escaped unphased, dissident groups claimed that some 80 libyans and east germans perished, unquote. significantly the c.r.s. cited various sources as early as 1984 which claimed, and i quote, the united states' central intelligence agency trained and supported the national front

before and after the may 8 operation. now, by october 31, 1996, according to a bbc translation of an arabic journal in london, a colonel who is leader of this libyan national liberation army, the armed wing of the national front, he was quoted as saying, force is the only effective method for dealing with gaddafi. now follow me to march 26, 2011. a newspaper reported, and i quote, the new leader of libya's opposition military left for libya two weeks ago, unquote. apparently around the same time

the president signed the covert operation's order. and i'm making an observation. the new leader spent the past two decades of his life in libya ? no. in suburban virginia where he had no visible means of support. his name, colonel kalifa hiftar. now, one wonders when he planned his trip and who is his travel agency? congress needs to determine whether the united states through previous covert support

of the armed instruction -- insurex-driven by the american-created national front, potentially helped create the humanitarian crisis. that was used to justify military intervention. we need to ask the question. if we really want to understand how our constitutional prerogative for determining war and peace has been preempted by this administration, it is important that congress fully considered relevant events which may relate directly to the attack on libya. consider this, mr. speaker. on november 2, 2011, france and great britain signed a mutual defense treaty which included joint participation in a series of war games outlined in the bilateral agreement and surprisingly documented on a

joint military website established by france and great britain. it involved a long range conventional aair attack called -- air attack called southern storm against a dictatorship in a fictitious southern country called southland. in response to a pretend attack. the joint military air strike was authorized by a pretend united nations security council resolution. the composite air operations were planned, and this is the war games, for the period of march 21 through march 25, 2011. on march 20, 2011, the united states jointed -- joined france and great britain in an air attack against libya, pursuant to u.n. security council resolution 1973.

so the questions arise, mr. speaker, have the scheduled war games simply been postponed or are they actually under way after months and months of planning under the name of operation odyssey dawn? were opposition forces in libya informed by the u.s., the u.k. or france about the existence of these war games which may have encouraged them to actions leading to greater repression and a humanitarian crisis? in short, was this war against gaddafi's libya planned? or was it a spontaneous response to the great suffering which gaddafi was visiting upon his opposition? congress hasn't even considered this possibility. nato, which has now taken over enforcement of the no-fly zone, has more from an organization which pledged mutual support to

defend north atlantic states from aggression, they've moved from that to military operations reaching from libya to the chinese border in afghanistan. north atlantic treaty organization. we need to know and we need to ask what role french air force general and current supreme allied commander of nato for transportation may have played in the development of operation southern storm and in discussions with the u.s. and the expansion of the u.n. mandate into a nato operation. what has been the role of the u.s. african command and central command in discussions leading up to this conflict? what did the administration know and when did they know it?

the united nations security council process is at risk. when its members are not fully informed of all the facts, when they authorize a military operation. it is at risk from nato which is usurping its mandate, the u.n. mandate, without the specific authorization of u.n. security council resolution 1973. now the united states pays 25% of the military expense of nato and nato may be participating in the expansion in exceeding the u.n. mandate. the united nations relies not only on moral authority but on the moral cooperation of its member nations. if america exceeds its legal authority and determines to

redefine international law, we journey away from an international moral order and into the amorality of power politics where the rule of force trumps the rule of law. what are the fundamental principles at stake in america today? first and foremost is our system of checks and balances built into the constitution to ensure that important decisions of state are developed through mutual respect and shared responsibility in order to ensure that collective knowledge, indeed the collective wisdom of the people, is brought to bear. two former secretaries of state, james baker and warren christopher, have spoken jointly

to the, quote, importance of meaningful consultation between the president and congress before the nation is committed to war, unquote. our nation has an inherent right to defend itself and a solemn obligation to defend the constitution from the golf and vietnam to the -- gulf and vietnam to the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in iraq, we've learned from bitter experience that the determination to go to war must be based on verifiable facts carefully considered. finally, civilian deaths are always to be regretted but we must understand from our own civil war, more than 150 years ago, that nations must resolve their own conflicts and shape their own destiny internally.

however horrible these internal conflicts may be, these local conflicts can become even more dreadful if armed intervention in a civil war results in the internationalization of that conflict. the belief that war is inevitable makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. the united states in this new and complex world racked with great movements of masses to transform their own government must itself be open to transformation. away from intervention, away from trying to determine the leadership of other nations, away from covert operations to manipulate events and towards a

rendezvous with those great principles of self-determination which gave birth to our nation. in a world which is interconnected and interdependent, in a world which cries out for human unity, we must call upon the wisdom of our namesake, our founder, george washington, to guide us in the days ahead. he said, the constitution vets declaring war in congress. therefore, no expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such measure,

unquote. washington. washington. whose portrait faces us every day as we deliberate. also had a wish for the future america. he said, my wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. caller: house calendar number 22, house resolution 189. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 658, to amend title 49, united states code, to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years

2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science, space, and technology, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on transportation and infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order

to consider as an original bill for the purpose ofamendment under the five-minuterule an amendment in the nature of a substituteconsisting of the text of the rules committee print dated march 22, 2011. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendment are waived. at the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my good friend, mr. mcgovern. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i

rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. house resolution 189 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of house resolution -- h.r. 658, the f.a.a. re-authorization and reform act of 2011. the rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the members of the minority party and majority to participate in the debate. this structured rule has made in order dozens of amendments ranging in a full wide range of provisions in the bill and also transportation policy in general. in addition to the one hour of equally divided general debate on the bill, the rule has provided for 33 amendments in order including 18 from the minority, 1 from the majority and three bipartisan amendments. of the 24 amendments offered by the minority, 21 were made in order by this rule. i point out the number of amendments made in order by

this rule because -- by specificity because it is so unusual. the last long-term f.a.a. re-authorization passed congress in 2007. the rule for the bill allowed for only five amendments. and those were debated on the floor. since the last long-term f.a.a. expired, congress has passed 18 short-term extensions and never once have any of the rules allowed for any amendment of any kind debatable on this floor. while many at home may assume that when the house debates something as important as the aviation system, their member of congress is given the opportunity to offer and submit ideas and debate those ideas on this floor. it's not the case in recent years. today, we will likely hear from the members from the minority insisting that the underlying bill contains inadequate funding despite the fact that our nation has and is facing a

$1.6 trillion deficit and we should be tightening our belts just like families across america are doing. we may hear from members from the other side of the aisle complaining that the legislation eliminates government subsidizes essential air services to rural areas of america. despite skyrocketing costs to the taxpayers during an already stressful economic time. and we also hear from colleagues that suggest that the legislation contains a poison pill. and that is a provigse of rewriting union rules despite those rules being in place overwhelmingly effective for the last 70 years. to those complaints, i would specifically and simply ask and suggest vote for the rule. the rule allows for amendments to be debated, alternatives, all kinds of things to be allowed to the base of this bill and debated and heard on this floor, and to me that is a good thing. to be sure some of the above issues are addressed by amendments, those issues i just

mentioned, and, you know, they are going to be debated shortly as soon as we pass this rule and begin debate on the bill. so if you have any concerns about the bill i implore my colleagues to support the rule which allows for those concerns to be debated by the newly elected members of this body. amendments will pass or fail based on the merits of argument made by proponents and opponents of these ideas, and in the end the process -- the members are still not satisfied with the final product, they can vote against it. however, to scrote against the rule, which would allow this debate to take place, suggests satisfaction with the underlyinging bill as it is currently written. and i would understand that position because i support the bill as well. i support passing a four-year extension that would allow for long-term aviation system planning instead of a merely short-term cookie cutter fix that accomplishes very, very little. i support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels to save taxpayers $4

billion over the next several years. i support consolidating aging obsolete and unnecessary f.a.a. facilities and expanding the cost effective contract tower program which allows airports to utilize privately operated, more efficient control towers. i support authorizing -- re-authorizing that is 100% free of earmarks, tax increases or passenger facility charges. and the list goes on. but the most important thing in this debate, we have here on the floor right now for this particular rule. if you don't support these things, the rule allows members to bring alternative proposals before this house for an open and honest debate. so once again, mr. speaker, i rise to support this rule and the underlying legislation. the committees of jurisdictions have worked to provide us a long-term re-authorization that can streamline the modization of our aviation system -- modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of short-term fixes when it

comes to funding this crucial service. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. mr. mcgovern: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, here we go again. instead of bringing meaningful legislation to create jobs to the floor of the house of representatives, the new republican majority continues to show just how out of touch they are. two weeks ago it was cutting off funding for national public radio. yesterday it was private school vouchers in washington, d.c. but today's bill is even worse because this bill will actually destroy jobs. h.r. 658 starts by reducing the federal aviation administration's funding back to the republican's favored soundbite number of f.y. 2008

levels. we know that every $1 billion of federal investment in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. that's 35,000 americans who could pay their mortgages and stay in their homes, 35,000 americans that can better afford to put their kids through college, 35,000 americans that could help our economy to recover. instead h.r. 658 cuts almost $2 million from the airport improvement program which provides grants to airports for constructing and improving runways and term a numbers. this provision alone will cost us 70,000 jobs ope over the course of this four--- over the course of this four-year authorization period. h.r. 658 reduced funding level will reduce in the layoffs of hundreds of engineers and support personnel. these drastic cuts will also delay transitioning our outdated air traffic control system to

the modern next gen system. without 21st century infrastructure and technology, the united states cannot keep up with our global competitors. it's just that simple. mr. speaker, in the past the f.a.a. re-authorization bills have garnered a great deal of bipartisan support. unfortunately this time it -- this time is very different. because in addition to the inadequate funding levels this bill continues in emerging and disturbing republican trend toward destroying the collective bargaining rights for american workers. from wisconsin to ohio to maine we have seen how republican politicians are attempting to destroy a century of hard-fought labor protections. this bill represents more of the same. this bill would reverse a national mediation board rule that allows a majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide the outcome. instead extremists -- tea party

extremists want to count workers who chose not to vote as automatic no's against the union. i wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle will be willing to use that same standard in congressional elections. i wonder if they'd agree that every registered vote who are didn't vote for whatever reason last november would automatically be counted as a no vote against them. i doubt it. because in the 2010 midterm elections, 40.9% of eligible voters cast ballots nationwide. under the standard in this bill, not a single current member of congress would have won an election last year, not one. let me make this a little more clear. neither i nor my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the new member representing the eighth district of florida, would be standing here today if this undemocratic standard is enacted. in fact, my friend from florida would have received only 23.1% of the vote, well below the 50% threshold included in this bill that he supports today. i ask my friend from florida,

where in the constitution does it say that any registered voter who doesn't cast a vote in an election has their vote counted as a no? if this standard doesn't make sense for members of congress, if we're unwilling to use it on ourselves, then it isn't fair for working people trying to organize. mr. speaker, this bill unfortunately abandons a long and proud tradition of bipartisanship on the transportation committee. on which i am honored to say that i once had the privilege of serving on. and i urge my colleagues to reject this rule. by the way, we have yet to have a truly open rule in this congress. notwithstanding the promises that we would see nothing but open rules, we have yet to have a single truly open rule. so i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to continue with my time and i will say this, i came here to talk about the rule. i didn't come here to talk necessarily about the underlying

bill, although i do support the underlying bill. the rule is what's before us right now. not necessarily the policy that's underneath it. we'll be discussing that. there are amendments offered that will change many of the things, could change many of the things spoken of by my good friend from massachusetts. but i ran for election to this house of representatives based on the fact that i told people america's not broken, washington is. one of the things that was broken in washington was the process. the process that i saw, the process that was inherited by our own speaker was a process based on a pyramid of power. that pyramid of power was so high, it's as high as the space needle, probably, and the few people at the top were the ones that made the decision. not anyone else. why were there so many closed bills? because the pyramid of power said, this is what we're going to do and this is what you got to do and you got to go vote, unfortunately. and that's what i came here to change and i think the speaker did, too. he created a process by which there were amendments offered on a floor of this house on these bills so that people can address

the problems that they have. so he has pushed down the pyramid of power and spread out the base, so every single member had an opportunity to file an amendment and almost every one of those were made available to be used on the floor of this house by this rule. and it was done because we want the membership, we want -- as the speaker has said, he wants this to be a -- the people's house. he wants the people to have an opportunity to have their member heard on particular issues and particular amendments. yes, there will be debate on this bill. there will be debate on the underlying measure and we'll be talking about that and i'll be voting for that. but that's not what we're here to talk about right now. and that is there is a process, it was broken and we're doing everything we can to fix it. this rule helps do that. this rule is a rule that allows for open and honest debate on amendments, on the bill itself and to me that is a great improvement over where we've been in the past. so push down that pyramid of power, spread out the base, let every member be a player, do it

by voting for this rule and i would yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the speaker for the recognition. i want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, as i understand this is the first rule he's managing and you're doing a brilliant job so far, so hopefully that will be the case for the next 50 minutes as well. i want to also congratulate chairman dreier and the rules committee for coming up with this rule. i tell you, i've been here in the minority, i've been here in the majority and this 33 amendments made in order under this rule, beat by 28, the number that were made in order when we last considered this piece of legislation. so congratulations to you. and sadly, i think for my friends on my party, one of the amendments made in order is mine. and it's what caused me, although i fully support the rule, going to vote for the rule, it's what causes me some angst relative to the bill. and i have to give a little bit

of context and history. i was on the transportation committee when the first re-authorization of this bill was supposed to take place. this bill hasn't been re-authorized since 2003. this bill is about america's future because among other things it takes our air traffic control system from ground-based radar to satellite-based so that we can do a lot of wonderful things and continue to be the world leader. so we need to get this bill done. but the funny thing keeps happening to this bill on the way to the bank, i guess. we first had a fight between federal express and u.p.s. doesn't have a lot to do with nextgen but that screwed up the bill. then we had a fight with the air traffic controllers and the bush administration and that screwed up the bill for a while. then we had a problem with something called p.f.c.'s. how much a passenger pays as a landing charge and those fees of course are then turned into runways and infrastructure and they employ a lot of people, so we didn't have a bill. and then we almost got a bill, in the last congress, jim

oberstar and john mica and costello and petri did a really nice job, sent the bill over to the senate, and a couple senators decided that they wanted to favor one airline over others and have additional flights, long distance flights, from reagan national airport to their homes, i guess, on the west coast. and so one airline would have received 48% of the benefit and everybody else would have gotten the scraps. we didn't have a bill. and again you say, why do people get frustrated with washington? why do -- what do any of those things have to do with whether or not we're the world leaders in aviation? now we come to this bill. there is a poison pill in this bill. the senate will not take up the bill as currently written. the president issued a statement last night indicating he will veto the bill and it's all over this one issue. this one issue doesn't belong in the bill. now, there are people around here that love unions and the unions can do no wrong. there are people around here that hate unions and unions can't do anything right. but what happened is the unions

that -- or the airlines and the railroads are organized and regulated under the rail labor act as opposed to the national labor relations board act. it's been that way since the 1930's. and for years the rule was that, 75 years, actually, that if you wanted to certify a union, you had to get a majority of the people in the whole class, and mr. mcgovern's exactly right, could you imagine, there's about 200,000 people that are registered to vote in my congressional district. and so you stand for election and if i got 70%, so 100,000 people show up, only half, which is about what we're averaging in this country, 100,000 people show up, 70,000 of them vote for me. i'm pretty happy thinking i got a nice election going. but under the structure that's been in existence for all these years, those 100,000 people didn't show up, they're counted against me. they're counted as no votes. americans don't understand that kind of an election process. it just doesn't make any sense. and the arguments and the

purnback against this is, well, it's been that way for 75 years. the speaker has alerted historian of the country, only white men who owned property could vote in this country. i bet if you asked the white guys who owned property back then, they were probably pretty happy about that and they'd say it works ok. but in another 100 years, the women of this country couldn't vote. if you asked some of the men they were probably happy about that as well. just because something's been around for a long time doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair. so the national mediation board which has jurisdiction changed the rule. they had a hearing, they asked for comments, they had a public meeting, they took a vote and they changed the rule to the more fair procedure wherein those people that actually show up and vote, that's going to be the vote. now, have horrible things happened since this rule went into effect? no. in fact, one of the prime proponents of this rule change, delta airlines, they've had four elections since the rules were changed, the union has lost all four and this dumb argument i

heard the other day that only three people can come and form a union, that's nonaccepts. they had 94% turnout at their elections. this encourages turnout. the other thing i just want to mention is that, you know, there's a lawsuit pending on this. the air transport association sued the national mediation board. they lost. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. webster: i give -- i'd like to yield an additional 30 seconds. 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. latourette: we do our darnedest to say we're going to drain the swamp. but in this lawsuit they got a lot of members of the air transport association, but here are the airlines and i'll let everybody listening and following at home figure out what's going on here. the following members of the air transport association opted out of this lawsuit. american airlines, continental airlines, southwest airlines, u.p.s. airlines, united airlines and u.s. airways.

this is a bad deal and we shouldn't be doing it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does -- i mean, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to commend mr. latourette for his efforts on trying to promote fairness and would reiterate that the issue in question has no business being in this bill. this should not have been put into this bill and i consider it a poison pill and again i think it reflects this troubling pattern that we see all across the country where my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be siding against working people. i'd also just say about the process, we were told that there would be open rules, open rules, open rules. we have no had one. and every member on the republican side of the rules committee has been given an opportunity to vote for an open rule and they have voted it

down every single time. this afternoon we're going to take up this bill, this deem and pass bill, whatever people are calling it, which i think is not constitutionally sound but nonetheless we are bringing it up, we'll have another opportunity then to have a vote on an open rule. i wonder where my friends on the republican side will be on opening up that process. my guess it will come to the floor either under a closed rule or very restricted process. so let's be clear, there has not been one truly open rule yet. at this point i'd like to yield five minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the rules committee, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you. and i appreciate my colleague for yielding, and i want to congratulate my colleague, mr. webster, on management of his first rule. i rise today in opposition to the shuster amendment that would undermine the strong flight safety regulations

passed by this congress and meant to protect the air travelers throughout the nation. last july congress teamed together to pass the anti-safety and federal aviation administration extension act of 2010. it was landmark legislation requiring the f.a.a. to implement the findings of the national transportation safety board which many of us thought the f.a.a. already did to establish a pilot's record database to provide the airlines with fast, electronic database to disclose who is operating each flight and of vital importance to those who live in western new york, make the necessary changes to address the underreported and deadly issue of pilot fatigue and inability to fly in bad conditions. my concern, mr. speaker is that this amendment stands to undermine all of these reforms. it would lay additional lay

ares to the f.a.a.'s already cumbersome rulemaking process change -- changing what we did last year. mr. speaker, i have the opportunity to represent western new york and flight safety is our highest priorities. it was outside buffalo in the suburb of clarence, new york, on a snowy february evening that continental connection flight 3407, operated by regional carrier cogan air, crashed to the ground killing all 49 passengers and one man on the ground. it was a tragedy deeply felt in western new york and sent shock waves throughout the aviation community. as we discovered more details that faithful evening, we learned that the young pilot had never been trained on stall recovery techniques which were needed that snowy night and failed five different tests but

his employer only knew about two of those failures. one pilot had slept in the airport in a chair, the other had taken a red eye flight from seattle just the night before. exposed delinquencies in commercial aviation that truly needed solutions. pilots are often exhausted and underpaid and discrepancies in the training requirements exist between major carriers and their regional partners. pilot records are inconsistent, meaning a pilot's entire flying record was not available to his employer. in the two years that followed we took tremendous effort to learn from the lessons of that painful night. led by heroic family members, the victims of flight 3407, congress passed the airline safety and federal aviation administration extension act. i want to take a moment to recognize the courage and tenacity of those family members. in the past two years they worked through the grief of

their own loss and advocated for safer skies for the rest of us. collectively they made 40 trips to washington on their own money constantly reminding members of the house, senate and administration that improving aviation safety is never a cause that can be pushed aside. they have become the most effective group of citizens i have seen in my time in government. every one of us, and we all do almost every week who steps into an airplane, owes them tremendously and i am pleased to call them my friends. the nation cannot thank them individually but this congress can pass them by voting no on the shuster amendment. because of their work and those few in congress, there is no better way to mark the lessons that we have learned as a nation about flight safety than by honoring the people who died on that cold and snowy night. this has been the mission of their families and has become a

mission of mine. any attempt to turn back the clock on landmark provisions we passed last july will hurt everyone, including all of the members of congress who, as i say, mostly fly back and forth to our districts each week. to think that the pilot flying that plane is so fatigued that he or she is not at their peak is astounding and dangerous to all of us. these safety provisions must stay intact. they must apply to all pilots. it should not take another tragedy for us to have to relearn the lessons of flight safety. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment which should not be in this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i still want to bring it back to the issue at hand. we're talking about a rule here. i found that no matter what you're making, you could be making wigets or you could be

making laws, if the process is flawed, whatever you manufacture, whatever you make is flawed and that's is what we are trying to do here. previous congresses, i believe, had a flawed process. this is an improvement. it allows for 33 amendments. i'll remind everyone, there were 18 extensions of this particular piece of legislation over the past several years. not one of them ever, ever had an amendment offered on the floor of this house. this is one piece of legislation with 33 amendments being offered. that to me is an improved process. what happens when you improve the process? when you improve the process the product is always going to improve. i have a business. i know, mr. speaker, you do. you know that if everything you can do starts with first making that process better. that's what we're doing. that's what this rule does. it improves the process, and by improving the process the product that's produced by this

house, which is not in question right now because there are 33 amendments filed to this underlying bill that's been made available for this house to debate. so we don't know what the final product is going to be and we'll have to wait and see. that's a whole lot better process than it is coming in voting yes or no on a particular piece of legislation. i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let's talk about process. notwithstanding the promises of open rules, we've been here for 13 weeks and not a single open rule, not a single open rule. and i will tell you that there's something wrong with the process when after all this time we have yet to do anything to help create jobs or promote jobs in this country. jobs are the most important issue. a couple weeks ago you deal with national public radio. is that the most -- it was brought to the floor under an emergency rule, an emergency rule. what kind of process is that? you would think that we were going to talk about something

important like -- the potential war in libya or about how we put people back to work. instead, an emergency rule was utilized to bring a bill to defund national public radio. there's something wrong with this process when we're talking about that and not talking about jobs. at this point, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, my friend, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. i'm here to talk about the abandonment of essential air service in rural america. my problem with this bill, among others, is that this legislation turns its back on rural america. the f.a.a. budget is about providing a transportation system that is going to serve all of america, all of our taxpayers in urban and in rural areas. and this bill is an assault on the $200 million a year that had been available for essential air services in rural

america. how is it that rural america gets left behind? we have needs, we have companies, we have taxpayers and we have travelers. and we can have that commitment to rural america be continued, not abandoned. let me give you an example. the southern vermont regional airport serves southern vermont. that county is rural. 63,000 people. there's no interstate access, mr. chair, to help ensure the three daily flights to and from boston logan international airport, the air services are subsidized at $800,000 a year. it's a good and efficient use of taxpayer money. that airport has the fifth lowest e.a.s. subsidy in the country but it's had the greatest number of passenger in planement since 1985. this relatively small investment has spurred private investment in the region. we got a g.e. plant there. we got the local hospital.

it resulted in $25 million in economic impact for the region. and in the past year, brookings has risen by 25%. so the question i have is, yes, kick the tires on any program, make them accountable, but how is it accountable and how is it responsible to rural america when the budget gets smashed and we're going to leave the rutland regional airports of this country behind and we're turning our back on the prospects and hope of rural america? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to remind the house again we're talking about this rule, and there was an opportunity to file amendments on all the issues that are being brought up. there was an amendment filed on that very issue. it wasn't my fault it was withdrawn. it was the sponsor's fault it was withdrawn. had it not been there might have been a difference. might have been heard here.

might be able to discuss it. for some reason it was withdrawn. i also want to remind the membership, last congress zero open rules, zero, none, no amendments were offered on this floor. it was like a silence that existed for a long period of time. no member could stand up and give an amendment to any type of piece of legislation. that's a sad thing. that to me is a broken process. and all we're trying to do -- i'm glad chairman dreier came. he, too, along with the speaker, said we want to have an open process. we want to allow for opportunities in a process that's better than last time, that as we improve this process we're also going to improve the policy that we present to this floor and to the public once it passes and is signed by the president. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. webster: yes. i yield.

mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. i'd like to say, mr. speaker, i've listened to my friend from worcester keep throwing out this term open rule, open rule, we've had these chances for open rules and not had an open rule. based on the definition that my colleagues on the side of the aisle had, we had open rules. bills considered under what we correctly describe as a modified open rule were described by our friends when they were in the majority as an open rule. now having said that, what we repeatedly said was that since in the entire four years of speaker pelosi's leadership of this house we had one measure in four years considered an open rule. we said in our pledge to america that we wanted to make sure that the appropriations process is done under an open amendment process. and we're going to do our dog gonedness to make it under an

open rule. if you look at, as mr. webster said so well, and i want to congratulate on his management of his first rule in the house, making 33 amendments in order has not in any way predetermined the outcome of the measure when we had all of these extensions that went on for f.a.a. and my friend, mr. mica, the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee is here, i know we had these constants renewals without a single amendments being offered. so we are going to have 33 amendments. so our commitment to a more open process is in fact been met and exceeded in the eyes of many. and i will tell you the praise that we've gotten from members in the leadership on the democratic side of the aisle for having gone through all of the amendment adams that we did, it was virtually unprecedented on h.r. 1, the measure that allowed us to work overnight and have a modified open rule, meaning any member can offer a germane amendment, was, as i said, virtually unprecedented. i am glad what we've done.

certainly juxtaposed what we've seen in the last four years. mr. speaker, by virtue of doing this, we're allowing the people of this country a chance to be heard that has not been there for quite a long period of time. i, again, thank my friend for his superb management and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i've listened with great interest my friend from california, mr. dreier, kind of amend a little bit about what the republican majority promised. now, i think i heard him right that open rules now only limited to appropriations bills and nothing else? mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that? mr. mcgovern: i yield. mr. dreier: i never said i am going to limit an open amendment process, open rules to the appropriations process. what i said was the commitment that we made was that since we had the appropriations process completely shut down in the last two sessions of congress we wanted to have now this done under an open amendment

process. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. mcgovern: i thank my friend for clarification. it seems a little revisionist history. i guess later this week we are going to rewrite the constitution so why not rewrite history? we were promised open rules and under the definition of an open rule we have not had one single open rule in this congress. . this afternoon we'll deal in the rules committee with the deem and task bill which again -- we had it on this floor not too long ago the reading of the constitution. i guess my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't paying attention because what they are trying to do this afternoon is not, in my opinion, i think or anybody's opinion, does it fit with the constitution. but it will be interesting to see whether or not that comes to the floor under an open process. my guess it will be a very prestrictive process which we have become accustomed to. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. higgins: i thank the

gentleman. i rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment made in order under this rule. which would block the implementation of regulations to prevent pilot fatigue. our current pilot fatigue regulations are outdated and have been on the books for decades. in that time we have seen many preventable accidents occur due to pilot fatigue, including the crash of flight 3407 near buffalo in which 50 people died two years ago. in response to that tragedy and after a year of consideration, last year the house and senate unanimously, unanimously passed legislation to update our pilot fatigue rules. they are spending implementingation -- pending implementation by the f.a.a. fay. these reforms have been on the national transportation safety board's most wanted list for the past 20 years. they are based on science, fact, real input from the professional aviation community. however, the amendment offered by mr. shuster would have the effect of blocking their

implementation. pilots are people who have a huge responsibility to the flying public. it doesn't matter whether they are flying a cargo plane, regional plane, or large passenger plane. they need adequate rest to perform their duties. quite simply, these pilot fatigue reforms will save lives. 50 lives were needlessly lost two years ago. last year we voted unanimously to enact these reforms due to the doinged -- dogged advocacy and determination of the families who lost their loved ones in that crash. these families want nothing more than to make our airwaves safer and prevent this tragedy from happening again. i urge my colleagues to stand with these families, to stand with aviation safety, and please vote against the shuster amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield five minutes to my friend from florida -- reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield

two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. boswell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. boss well: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- mr. boswell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boswell: thank you. first i would start off by acknowledging the efforts of the open rule and so on and give you praise, but are doing enough to give yourself praise so i won't do that today. i rise to oppose this rule. i rise to address yet another attack on our nation's workers and the middle class that have been snuck into the f.a.a. re-authorization act. as a senior member of the committee and pilot myself, i am appalled the republicans chose to play politics with legislation as important as this while it ensured our skies are safe and operating at peak performance. h.r. 658, republicans marched on in this crusade against working americans and middle class families by targeting union representation elections for hardworking americans. under this legislation, republicans would deny

transportation workers and their unions the basic tenets of democracy by ordering an absent vote and-n a representation election to be counted as a no vote. by this math, not a single one of us serving in the house today would be here when we compare voting populations in our districts with the percentage of yes votes we all mustered. on average we have earned about 25% of the vote. target our nation's transportation workers, the republicans have once again drawn a line in the sand between the needs of middle class america and protecting the interest of c.e.o.'s and wall street. it's obvious which side they are on. instead of stripping our aviation workers of their democratic rights, why don't republicans look in their own ranks and apply this election concept to wall street. from here on out make every corporation that received government assistance count on -- count an absent shareholder vote as no vote when considering

executive compensation and bonus packages. that won't happen. instead focusing on real issues like jobs and education, the republicans are attacking middle class rail and aviation workers who do dangerous jobs to keep our transportation system going. i urge my colleagues to stand with the middle class workers who put their lives on the line every day at work to make sure that goods and people are being moved across this nation and vote yes on the amendment offered by congressman latourette and costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: madam speaker, could i inquire -- i have one more speaker, mr. mica, and then myself. i'd like to inquire of mr. mcgovern -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 12 1/2 minutes remaying. the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: we have a number of people requested to speak. we have one other speaker who is present here. if no one shows up, you can go to mr. mica and then i'll close

for us and you close for yours. mr. webster: for the present i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the rule because it includes a manager's amendment with problematic provisions. the manager's amendment would prevent the disclosure and use of safety data, provides immunity to all persons and organizations involved in the implementation of the safety mesh sure system, and provides total immunity for volunteer pilot and organizations and referring agencies. by preventing the disclosure of safety information, the manager's amendment severely hinders the ability of people injured by the negligence of the aviation industry or their surviving family members from obtaining crucial information that they need in a court of law

to determine whether or not their loss was due to the industry's negligence. essentially allows the negligent airline companies and their employees to hide and keep evidence of their negligence secret. additionally by granting immunity to any person that is required to implement a safety measure and program, or system, the volunteer pilots and pilot organizations, the amendment would potentially provide immunity to the entire aviation industry. this immunity provision is so broad it would protect individuals who neglectly failed to follow a safety standard, even if that failure led to massive passenger deaths. madam speaker, this is outrageous and essentially asks the airline passengers to put their lives in the hands of aviation teams who could possibly have no liability for any negligence that occurs during the flight. this is unnecessary because we already have in law volunteer protection act which provides immunities for volunteers.

this amendment would interrupt the careful balance achieved through that act by giving volunteer organizations and others immunity as well. the airline industry is free to purchase liability insurance to ensure that people are protected from negligent acts of its employees. this amendment exempts the industry from having the responsibility for the safety of the public and its employees and is certainly not in the best interest of the flying public. so this rule should be defeated so that amendment cannot be offered. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, madam speaker. first of all i want to go back again to where we were. we are talking about a rule. we are talking about a process, a good process that allows for amendments. and i know that the other side is thinking, we got to come in here and argue this bill. we got to argue the underlying part. you don't. you got plenty of time to do it because this rule will allow for good lengthy debate not only on

the bill itself but also the 33 amendments that have been offered. i would encourage them to think about the fact that this rule is what we are voting on and this rule is a good rule, an open process, one that allows for every member to participate. i would tell them again vote for this rule. that's my response to any of the criticisms of this bill. yes, they are going to be addressed by an amendment. make your case and see if you can pass it. i'd like to yield five minutes of my time to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you. mr. webster's correct, madam speaker, that this is about the rule and the rules committee serves a very important purpose because we have 435 members. when we come to the floor you just can't have chaos. there has to be some structure. all members are afforded the opportunity to speak.

if we go through our regular business -- i won't at this time because i have very limited time. you have lots of time left. i won't yield. my is limited. and that's part of the process. again i was just yielded five minutes. so the rules committee sets the order of debate. how much time there shall be. how many amendments are submitted. i have been here a while. my family's been around congress a while. the last four years for anyone to commentate that this is an unfair rule is so far from being accurate. 50 amendments were offered. as the chair of the committee, i pay attention to the amendments. i went before the rules committee and asked that they carefully consider these. what you want to do is make sure you don't have duplicate. you don't have nongermane, you don't have -- be fair to members so everybody gets a chance.

some 48 were offered. 48 actually, i understand, 39 were left after members withdrew them. 33 were accepted. that leaves six that they took out. if that's unfair in any way, it's hard to believe. so we have been fair. mr. webster's been fair, mr. dreier's been fair. i have never seen a fairer process than in the last four years when the place was run under basically martial law. you couldn't bring amendments up. then how did we get ourselves in this situation? for four years they had complete control of this body. they could have passed anything. what did they do? they passed things, but they passed out much and spent so much that the american people threw them out. they had enough votes in the house to pass anything. they had enough votes in the senate to pass anything. the last two years they had a

president that would sign anything. this aviation bill, 17 times they did an extension. i was the chairman in 2003 when we did a four-year bill. we did a four-year bill. it expired in 2007. my bill expired that i helped draft and author in 2004 -- sorry, 2003, expired after four years in 2007. 17 times they let the aviation policy, the funding formula, all the programs for safety and everything, go on the most erratic basis you can imagine. 17 extensions. costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. go talk to the f.a.a. administrator. every time they did that, what they did to the disruption of one of the most important industries in the united states, 9.2% of our gross domestic product, an activity is in the

aviation industry. they had 40 years to pass it. unbelievable. in less than four months we have already had -- worked with the united states senate, they passed the bill. we passed it through two other committees. and now our transportation infrastructure committee is bringing it up here under a fair rule. one of the most open rules with open participation by all members on both sides. don't talk to me about fairness and rules. this is fair. let's get it done and pass this rule. get the people's business done and get people working in the united states of america instead of more hot air passing through this chamber. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i am the last speaker on our side. so if you have other speakers i'll let you go. mr. webster: we have no other speakers, madam speaker. so i would say i'll reserve the rest of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i am amazed by the comments of the gentleman from florida when it comes to rules because when we were in charge of the house, i don't recall a single time where the gentleman came before the rules committee and did not advocate for an open rule. this is not an open rule. . in response to amendments being offered will be denied that opportunity. and there is a restriction on the ability of members to be able to participate in debate under a true open rule every member would have at least five minutes if they chose to be able to talk on a bill. it's interesting this revisionist history, the republicans promised open rules but has not produced a single open rule.

that's a fact. and we can spin it any way we want to but you promised open rules and we haven't seen a single one yet. as far as the bill goes, h.r. 658, one of the reasons why we are concerned is because this is a job-destroying bill. we should be obsessed in this congress about protecting jobs and creating jobs. yet, what we have seen is attention being given to anything else but jobs. couple weeks ago we spent a whole week on national public radio. should we defund national public radio? when people are out of work. and here you bring a bill h.r. 658 to the floor that will destroy american jobs. $4 billion in cuts, they will have dire consequences for our country. the aviation industry, i remind my friends, accounts for nearly 11 million american jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. this republican bill will cut the airport improvement grant for runway maintenance and safety enhancements by almost

$2 billion costing us 70,000 jobs. especially lea hurting small airports. -- especially hurting small airports. now, this bill cuts -- there are cuts in this bill that would also lead to a reduction in safety personnel and delay important air safety initiatives, a bad choice for the flying public is highlighted by the recent reagan national incident. in february, the f.a.a. administer under president george w. bush, marion blakely, stated, and i quote, the prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels and stop nextgen in its tracks, end quote. this bill eliminates essential air service for 110 rural communities needed to connect them with the -- with global commerce and support local jobs and spur economic growth. you know, it's important to invest in our infrastructure in order to keep this economy

strong. and this bill, as has been said over and over again, extends the assault on american workers' collective bargaining and the middle class to workers in the aviation and railroad sectors. this bill overturns the rule for union elections which as with other elections calls for a majority of votes cast to win. this continues this pattern, this assault on american workers. you know, i don't know when -- i can my friends on the republican side -- when did the american worker become the bad guy? my friends on the other side go out of their way to protect wall street. you know, under their open process when they brought up their h.r. 1, their bill that cuts all these essential programs, they wrote it in a way that protected the taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies so we couldn't get at them. it protected, you know, all these special interests tax loopholes that are there for big business and big

corporations. you know, after what happened to our economy, this mess that was created in large part by wall street, here we go again with this republican majority attacking working families, workers. well, someone's got to stand up for working families and workers and i -- i'm glad there are members on my side of the aisle that are willing to do that. this -- this controversial provision should not be in this bill. this is a throwaway to the extreme right wing and it should not be in this bill. madam speaker, let me close by saying we need to start talking about jobs and how we protect jobs and create jobs. this bill, because of the dramatic cuts in this bill, will destroy jobs. you want to find savings? go after taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. you want to find savings, if you are going to fight these wars, pay for it. you want to find savings, close some of these grotesque tax loopholes for the richest

interests in this country. instead, you go after things that help average american families that go after american workers. this is wrong. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule which is not open and i urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: madam speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my republican colleagues and i are committed to providing a more accountable, transparent, open process than the minority allowed during previous congresses. today's bill is another step in that right direction. an example of the house republican's commitment to reform the way things are done here in washington. the underlying bill has bipartisan support. it went through the regular order and it was provided a structured rule to allow republicans and democrats alike to offer amendments, ideas in an open, honest debate. while i'm supportive of the

underlying rule, this -- bill, this rule which allows 333 amendments from both sides of the aisle where ideas and policies will rise and fall based on their merit and not any particular sponsor's party affiliation. this is what the american people expect in their elected officials. i'd like to introduce to you one of the new americans that was born last night at 10:50. this is claire. she's our seventh granddaughter. and we're excited about her. and she, just like the rest of the americans, believes that the expectations is being fulfilled by this rule. the rule that we have here before us. that is that we will have an opportunity to express ourselves in a real, transparent, open way on amendments and the underlying bill and have the opportunity to present ourselfs and afford our -- ourselves and afford ourselves on each of those proposals. i encourage my colleagues to

join me in supporting the passage of this rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted and without objection -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend

and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. the house will come toured.

-- to ordered. please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does mr. mica rise? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i have an unanimous consent request. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 658 and include extraneous materials in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. are there additional requests? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee on transportation and infrastructure -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will the house please come to order? the gentleman can continue. mr. mica: again, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the committee on judiciary and the committee on science, space and technology be included in the

record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 189 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 658. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house will be in order. the chair asks that the house please be in order.

members take conversations from the floor. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 658 which the clerk will report by title. the speaker pro tempore: a bill to amend title 49, united states code, to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debail shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in house resolution 189 and shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science, space and technology, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: will the gentleman suspend for just a moment, please?

the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: madam chairman, members of the house, the first thing i'd like to do is ask for unanimous consent to insert at this point in the record the letters that i referenced earlier. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered urn general leave. mr. mica: i thank the chair. the legislation before us now as the chair has indicated is the f.a.a. re-authorization an reform act of 2011. during the discussion on the

rule which brought the measure to the floor, i had an opportunity to speak on the fairness of the rule and again i'll cite, having been here for a number of years and observed the process for three decades, i rarely find any time in which everyone has had a fair opportunity to offer amendments, some 48 amendments were offered before the rules committee. some 33 were accepted. nine were withdrawn. so there are only six that were not considered. some for for the mainness reasons, some for being duplicative and also in fairtons members to have an opportunity to participate, again i think the process that's come forward has been fair. the process has been fair and bipartisan in the committee. in the last four years, as the

ranking republican, republican leader of the committee, i can count on probably less than three fingers the number of votes that we had over the four years. we had many more votes than that in the committee. it was an open process and people had the opportunity to participate. then i also spoke in the rule of how we got ourselveses in this predicament. i had the honor and privilege of being the chair of the aviation subcommittee after the gipping of 9/11 and through the fateful time of 9/11 for some six years. in 2003, we passed the last authorization for f.a.a. now in order to operate the federal government and each of the agencies and activities, the congress must authorize the programs, the policy the agency

the funding formulas, and the projects that are eligible for federal participation. as i also stated, the other side of the aisle for 40 years had huge majorities, could pass anything that they wanted to. very large majorities in the house, large majority in the senate and the last two years, indeed, they controlled the white house, the house and the senate. could pass anything they want. in 2007, the bill i that i helped author, a four-year authorization expired. for the last four years they did 17 extensions in four years. it's no wonder that people don't have jobs. it's no wonder that people in the aviation industry don't know which way the federal government is coming or going. it's no wonder that you have some disarray in one of our

most important agencies, f.a.a. now they had four years, we've had less than four months. we're bringing the bill out, we've had a fair process in the committee, we've had an opportunity for people to offer amendments and we'll spend most of today and maybe part of tomorrow going through those amendments and i think adequate time for debate. the bill does make some reductions in spending. it does take us back to the 2008 level of spending. now the first thing i hear if the other side is, oh, the republicans are cutting and slashing important f.a.a. programs, safety and security and everything under the sun will be at risk. i can tell you that that's not the case. i can tell you you can do more with less. we can prioritize. in fact in this bill to make

certain that safety is our primary concern, and it must be our primary concern, that we have put specific provisions in here that if there are cuts or reduction -- cuts there are reductions and heaven knows, the f.a.a. and department of transportation certainly can have some reductions in bureaucratic staffing my dad used to say, when he was alive, he said, son, it's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it. it's just like that with personnel. people will say we're not going to have enough air traffic controllers. we had an incident at reagan, an air traffic control we are 20 years experience, 17 years at d.c.a., and came to work, i guess, at 10:00, there was somebody there until almost 10:30, i understand he was there an hour and 28 minutes and either fell asleep or wasn't doing his duty system of in washington, what do they do?

we've got to double up. we've got to have more employees. now listen to this statistic. listen to this statistic. since before 2001, we have a 21% decrease, since -- if we go to 2001, to today, we have a 21% decrease in air traffic movement. why? because the industry consolidated. we don't have as many flights, the economy is down. at the same time, we have an increase in 20% of staffing. so if you look at airports arn the country, you'll see some with huge reductions in air traffic, still the same number of air traffic controllers. in this bill, we have some flexibility so you can hopefully move people around. i know there are labor agreements, it's hard to get people to move, some people may

not like the warm climbs and beauty of florida where the population has expanded in yeads and wherever else we need them. but for heaven's sakes, do we need to double up? do we need to double up when there's no air traffic at these airports between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m.? that's the washington big spending, big government, let's add more. i can tell you there's plenty of room for doing things responsibly, doing things with safety in mind, doing things, now let's try a new approach. with the best interests of the taxpayer. they spent some $5.3 billion in about 24 months than we take in. we're on the verge of having our financial security of this nation at risk. also, threatening even our -- the defense security of this nation.

now, again, 17 times they did these little hiccup extensions, costing millions of dollars. just ask the f.a.a. administrator, the recalculation, all the things that had to be done, the inability to move forward with safety programs for that matter. so i just want to make the point that we can accomplish what we set out, a reduction in spending and actually better performance and better safety. i could give more examples, i don't have a lot of time. we used to chase developmental programs an the government would try to develop technology for air traffic control and they take forever and the private sector would develop technology, they do it sooner, faster, with better, with more capability, while still spending billions of dollars recklessly and we reduced actually the amount of money in the developmental programs that we actually put out there,

technology, faster, better. so there are many areas and i can't spend all my time talking about them. but this is a job creation bill. 9.2% of the gross domestic activity in this nation depends on this industry. we count on this and as i said, inless than four months, the other body, the senate has passed the bill, we're ready to go to conference, we've asked for one extension to accomplish this. and this bill has excellent provisions. finally, you'll hear them moan and groan about some labor provision that we're -- someone described that we're taking away democratic rights and all of this for union members. couldn't be further from the truth. we've had 70-something years of

rules under organizing for labor where we've always had a majority of those who were affected to have to vote in a union, now they want to change it to whoever shows up. they have multiple elections, and that's what they're asking for. little caveat here, i hope everyone is listening, madam chair, what they tnt do is to desert fi to get out of the unions, they left the old rule in place, has to be a majority of everyone who is affected, they'll tell you that, you know they didn't let woman vote -- women vote a long time ago, try to mix up the topic at hand and confuse people but you can't think of a more unfair rule than a packed national mediation board has an active, unfair, easy to enter in, cut

the provisions for entering in, and then put the -- put a barrier up to get out. again, i think this is an excellent program. it gives us opportunities to look at contract powers and then air traffic control next generation of air traffic control, we can do better, we can get technology in place, we'll probably have to use fewer people and always know where the planes are if we could move this legislation forward that again has been on the shelf for some four years. so there are excellent provisions in this legislation. i feel it deserves the support of the house, we'll have fair and open debate on amendments and i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. >> madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. rahall: just last week, at reagan national airport two planes had to land themselves because the air traffic controller was asleep. we have seen problems in the past where air traffic controller fatigue was implicated such as comair 5191 in lexington, kentucky. i was surprised when my republican colleagues used this most recent incident at washington national airport as an opportunity to argue that the f.a.a. should do more with less. do more with less. that's how the republicans think the f.a.a. will operate under this bill. when we're talking about investing in air traffic control modernization or regulating safety or hiring a sufficient number of safety inspectors, there's no such

thing as doing more with less. under this bill, the f.a.a. will have to do less with less. and you would have to be asleep at the controls not to see that. the f.a.a. is primarily a safety agency and virtually all of its activities are safety related. as last week's incident should make clear, now is not the time to arbitraryly cut almost $4 billion from the f.a.a. programs and argue that the agency can co-more with less on safety. a long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill must move the aviation system into the 21st century, create jobs, strengthen our economy and provide the resources necessary to enhance safety. this legislation, unfortunately, does not meet those goals. it will require significant changes before it can be enacted into law. and therefore i cannot support it. one thing we should all be

honest about right now, this is not a jobs bill. the bill cuts f.a.a. funding by billions of dollars, back to 2008 levels. you cannot cut funding so dramatically without destroying tens of thousands of jobs. federal job, state jobs, local jobs, public and private sector jobs. in addition to costing jobs, the bill's funding cuts would cause delatos air traffic control modernization, mean manager delayed flights, a reduction of f.a.a. safety work force and delatos f.a.a. safety rules. now, aside if the funding levels, there are two particular issues that preclude my support for this bill. the first is that the bill sunsets the essential air service program for the lower 48 states in 2013. leaving behind about 110 communities across the country. yet at the same time, the bill extends airport improvements to the marshall islands,

micronearbya and paulau. we do not even own them, they are independent countries. i understand improving these nations, we have a compact with them. but we are more than -- but the majority is more than willing to break the promise to rural america that was made here at home under the airline deregulation act and the f.a.a. re-authorization bills that followed. e.a.s. is a vital lifeline between rural communities and the global network of commerce. small communities have grown up around e.a.s. and creates a flow of goods and commerce into and out of small town america, brings families together and links four communities in my home state of west virginia with other cities and towns around the country and around the world. essential air service is an investment, it's not a handout. it is an investment in jobs and economic growth for small towns.

the majority is turning its back on small towns and rural america. i will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that congress has made to the people in rural america. i recognize the job-protecting benefits to the e.a.s. program and the value of critical federal investment for rural communities. now before i conclude there is another section that has no business whatsoever in being in this bill. and that is the provision that seeks to overturn a rule finalized by the national mediation board on fair union representation in elections. the rule did away with an unjust and undemocratic requirement under which a supermajority of airline and railroad workers had to vote in favor of union representation before a union could be certified to represent them at the bargaining table. nonvotes were counted as no votes. even though there was no reason to conclude workers were against union representation because they were sick or on furlough and did not vote.

the new rule which this bill would overturn says that the mediation board must count the votes among those employees who voted and must determine the will of the workers according to the yes and no votes actually cast. now just as congressional elections turn on a majority of those who voted, union representation elections should reflect the will of the voters. this is a poison pill provision. a provision to overturn that rule simply has no business being in this legislation. it has nothing to do with safety, it has nothing to do with improving our air transportation system and it has absolutely nothing to do with making air service more efficient. rather it is a lightning rod of controversy, part of a concerted assault, as we've seen too often this year, on collective bargaining. republicans and democrats alike have opposed it. it barely survived in the committee markup by a single vote. this unprovoked and unnecessary provision has no place in such

critically needed legislation, to keep the f.a.a. moving forward and the flying public safe. when it comes to doing more with less, my friends on the other side of the aisle are correct about a few things, i have to admit, when it comes to the pending legislation. more in 70,000 jobs lost with less funding for the a.i.p. program. more risk for the traveling public with less safety personnel and safety initiatives. more controversial poison pill provisions with less focus on job creation and safety enhancement. yep, that's doing more with less. with warning lights flashing and alarm bell belles ringing we cannot afford to go to sleep at the controls at such an important time for our aviation system and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: reminding everyone that we're borrowing 42 cents

out of every dollar. i'm pleased to yield to the chair of the aviation subcommittee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. petri: i want to thank my chairman. the legislation before us, h.r. 458, re-authorizes the safety and research programs, operations and arpte grants and funding -- airport grants and funding for the years 2011 through 2014. so it's a four-year re-authorization with no earmarks that will result in savings and in great efficiencies. the bill funds the f.a.a. at the fiscal year 2008 funding levels and will save $4 billion compared to the current levels. these funding levels recognize the state of the federal budget but should not affect vital safety functions. the f.a.a. administrators directed to achieve required cost savings without cutting safety critical activities.

the bill requires the f.a.a. to find and eliminate wasteful processes, duplicative programs and unnecessary practices. given current economic times, there is a need to put our limited resources where they're most needed and use them efficiently. although we cannot do all that we may have wanted to do when fighting budgets -- budget cuts, difficult decisions have to be made. we've worked to preserve the ability of the f.a.a. to conduct its safety functions, its most important mission and our number one priority. the bill will phase out the aye essential air service program by -- the essential air service program by 2014 resulting in $400 million in savings. the essential air service program was originally created in 1970 as a temporary program in the wake of airline deregulation. it was intended to allow airports to adapt to the change in the aviation industry and to plan accordingly. however, over the years this program has resulted in taxpayers paying millions of

dollars in subsidies to provide air service to communities even as passenger and planes have declined as our modes of transportation have become available. with regard to nextgen, h.r. 658 streamlines processes and provides sufficient funding with f.a.a. purse strings tightening to fund nextgen projects planned in the next four years. set strict goals and benchmarks and includes other measures to accelerate nextgen in order to keep the momentum going. nextgen is critical to the u.s.'s ability to compete in the global aviation system by providing safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly operations. the bill allows for expansion of the cost effective contract tower program which has the potential to save roughly $400 million over four years. in addition, the legislation provides a clear and efficient process for the f.a.a. to rapidly achieve benefits associated with the

consolidation of old, obsolete and unnecessary f.a.a. facilities with enormous potential savings. i'd like to commend chairman mica for his efforts in developing this bill and moving it through the committee. and also while we may have differences on a few provisions, there is much in this bill that has bipartisan support. i look forward to continuing to work with my aviation partner, representative jerry costello, and our ranking member, nick rahall, in getting agreement with the senate so we can finally send a bill to the president. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 658 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. costello has been in the trenches, on the runways and in the towers of this legislation for many years. he's been with the takeoffs and the landings of so many extensions and i now yield him sufficient time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for as

much time as he may consume. mr. costello: thank you, madam chair, and i thank the ranking member for yielding to me and his kind remarks. all of us agree we need a long-term f.a.a. re-authorization act. the f.a.a. and the aviation community needs to -- needs stability and direction that a multiyear authorization bill will provide. however, it's not this bill. it is important for members to know that h.r. 658 is a different f.a.a. re-authorization bill from the bipartisan legislation that my colleagues and i worked together on and that passed the house three times in the 110th and 111th congresses. that legislation would have created jobs, improved aviation safety and provided the f.a.a. with the resources necessary to modernize airport and air traffic control infrastructure. while some aspects of h.r. 658 were in prior house-passed bills and reflect some of my priorities, however there are many troubling omissions and

newly added provisions in the bill that are unacceptable. i think we all agree that we must make every effort to be fiscally responsible and cut federal spending where it makes sense, given the size of the deficit. at the same time, we also have a responsibility to the american people, to keep our aviation system safe and secure, make needed improvements to our infrastructure, strengthen the economy, create jobs and remain competitive. however, i share the concerns of those in the industry, that this legislation includes funding cuts that will affect safety and put the plying public at -- flying public at risk, devastate the f.a.a.'s next generation system, modernization efforts and ignore the need to strengthenen -- strengthen our economy by creating jobs. on the jobs issue, let me make it clear, mr. rahall said it and i'll say it again. this bill does not create jobs. instead it cuts roughly $2 --

two billion over the next four years and the f.a.a.'s airport improvement program -- in the f.a.a.'s airport improvement program. the a.i.p. provides funding for infrastructure projects such as runway and air traffic control towers and these probablies create well-paying construction jobs. a $2 billion decrease in funding in this bill means about 70,000 jobs. i will repeat that. 70,000 jobs will be lost because of the $2 billion cut in a.i.p. funds. in fact, it leaves so little a.i.p. discretionary funding available that even the most important projects such as completing runway safety areas by the congressionally mandated deadline cannot be funded. second, my republican colleagues argue that h.r. 658 directs the f.a.a. to prioritize and protect safety-related activities within the bill's reduced funding levels. that sounds great.

but all the evidence suggests that it can't be done. in february the house aviation subcommittee held an f.a.a. re-authorization hearing to listen to the aviation industry stakeholders. the unified message from the industry was loud and clear. congress cannot roll back f.a.a. funding to the 2008 levels without harming safety programs or hampering the industry. president bush's former f.a.a. administrator stated, and i quote, the prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future. if we really have to roll back to the 2008 levels and stop nextgen in its tracks, end of quote. a jobs bill? i don't think so. and neither does the person who ran the f.a.a. under the bush administration. the f.a.a. is primarily a safety agency and virtually awful its activities are safety related. this congress and the american people need to know that if we

arbitrarily cut $1 billion a year out of the f.a.a. budget it absolutely will affect safety. the agency will not do more with less, it will be forced to do less with less and cuts to these funding levels will have serious consequences. according to the f.a.a., the funding reductions in this bill will cause the agency to furlough the aviation safety work force by hundreds of employees, fewer safety inspectors, engineers and support personnel will adversely impact air traffic services and aviation safety certifications and the implementation of nextgen, which will end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run and cause our aviation industry to be less competitive globally. in addition, reduction in the work force will likely mean the delay of important safety regulations such as those mandated by congress in the new aviation safety law that was

enacted last year in a bipartisan vote in response to the flight 3407 tragedy in buffalo, new york. further, this legislation will force important safety-related airport improvement projects to be delayed or abandoned such as a wildlife hazard assessment. these types of assessments would help airports mitigate hazards like the one that brought down u.s. airways 1549 in 2009 where captain sullenberger and first officer skiles were forced to land in the hudson river because a flock of geese damaged the plane's engines. as mr. rahall has indicated just last week two planes landed safely at washington national airport without clearance because reportedly a single person in charge of the control tower apparently fell asleep. while investigations are ongoing, we have certainly seen accidents in the past where air traffic control staffing and fatigue were a factor.

such as the august, 2006, crash of comair flight 5191 in lexington, kentucky. i applaud secretary lahood's decision to re-evaluate staffing needs throughout the country. congress will also need to closely examine air traffic control staffing and fatigue going forward. but this incident should make it clear, now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from the f.a.a. programs and argue that the agency can do more with less without compromising safety. before us, and i know it's mr. rahall and others have talked about the provision in the legislation that i believe, too, is a poison pill. i will not go into all of the details as we will have an amendment later, but let me just say that the latourette-costello amendment i hope will be supported by members of this body. it's a poison pill provision,

section 903 in this legislation, that is certain to hold the legislation up in the senate. there is no way that i see the senate acting on that provision and the white house of course has already issued a statement saying that the president will receive recommendations from his advisors to veto the bill. if we are serious about passing a long-term f.a.a. bill this provision must come out. if it remains in the bill it will be rejected by the senate and the white house. madam chair, i will again say, and sive said many times before, i will work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fair bill that will not only pass the house but will pass the senate and be signed into the law by the president. this bill in its current form will not pass the senate or be signed into law by the president. finally, madam speaker, let me address -- or madam chair, let

me address a couple of comments that my friend the chairman of the full committee led off with in his remarks he indicated that the democrats, when we were in charge for all of these years and weren't able to pass legislation, we had to have 17 extensions. i would remind my friend that in 2007, 2009, and 2010, we passed bipartisan legislation. to re-authorize the f.a.a. it was our friends in the senate, in fairness that held the legislation up. it took them three years to pass an f.a.a. re-authorization bill and in fact as my friend from florida will remember, it was the two senators from tennessee that held the bill up in the senate and it was two issues that were held up in the senate and those issues involved p.f.c.'s and d.c.a., the number of slots at

washington reagan international airport. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 658, the f.a.a. re-authorization and reform act and hope that after we reject this bill we can go back and get a bill that accomplishes what we set out to do in the legislation, the bipartisan legislation, we passed last year. thank you, madam chair. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: can i inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from florida has 5 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from west virginia has four minutes remaining. mr. mica: i ask unanimous consent to yield two and a half minutes from the gentleman from pennsylvania of my time and arow him to control it for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: objection the gentleman from pennsylvania will control the time, two and a half minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. the e.a.s. program was

established to ensure that small communities across the country including those in my district maintain a link to the national aviation system. i also understand we have a se eveerly constrained federal budget and must do more with less. we need to make certain that federal programs make sense. mr. shuster: i look forward to getting this long overdue f.a.a. bill to the president's desk for signature and i look forward to making changes to the bill. mr. mica: i yield 30 seconds to mr. thompson. mr. thompson p.c. e.a.s. service works. two parents, real quick, one in pennsylvania was on e.a.s., needed it to get deployments up and what's happened, it's been successful. it's now off of e.a.s. the program works.

these folks are operating without that. another place in pennsylvania, their deployments are growing at this point. they're on the right track. e.a.s. is serving the correct purpose. if e.a.s. stops an ends, here's what ends in that area, private sector jobs totaling $9 million in payroll. and $28.8 million in economic activity. i do my best, i encourage the support of this service, i think it's very important for rural america. mr. mica: i agree to the gentleman, i yield -- mr. shuster: i adepree with the gentleman and yield to mr. berg. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berg: i am incredibly concerned about the provision in this bill that would phase out essential air service. e.a.s. is critical to large states like my own. rural regions rely on it for

transportation. airports like jamestown and devil's lake would not be able to provide critical air service without this i've spoken with congress moon mica and understand the need for the process to keep moving forward with this bill this bill contain miss good provisions that i support. i also know how vital rural access to essential aviation is. i ask the gentleman from florida and pennsylvania if they'd commit to working with me and other members to support the e.a.s. program. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman and recognize the gentlelady from south dakota, mrs. noem. ms. mome: we spent the last three months debating getting spending under control. that's a good thing. but we need to remember we need to look to get spending under control and help our economy and create jobs. a large part of that is providing certainty for american people. like many of my colleagues, i

represent the rural parts of america. many of them are concerned with the uncertainty that removing this program, essential air service, would bring. many comments in rural -- communities in rural america use it as an economic development tool. they understand they won't be using e.a.s. forever. but i'm concerned, madam chair, that we may not be providing them with the time they need to plan under this bill this issue deserves additional consideration. i hope that as we move forward with conference conversations with our senate colleagues that this is given much more careful consideration and i look forward to working on it with them. mr. shuster: i thank the gentlelady from south dakota. i look forward to working with my colleagues as we move forward. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. the gentleman from oregon.

mr. blumenauer: i claim the time for ways and means. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciated the debate here on the floor talking about the essential services that are included in the f.a.a. re-authorization, but sadly, some of the consequences for significant cuts in vital services i hear from some of my friends talking about essential air service, it impacts my state. we're looking at significant reduction in airport construction and as we've heard, it would stop next jen -- nextgen, as a former bush administration official was quoted, in its tracks. but it doesn't need to be this way. we can, in fact, respect the concerns about not adding to the deficit.

without shortchanging these essential programs. our friends in the senate on one of those rare occasions the other body has shown us the way. they have passed in the last year by a -- by 93 votes last year, an 87-8 vote already in this session a provision -- a re-authorization that actually adds revenues. not general taxes but there's been an agreement that is reached, overwhelming agreement, you don't get 87 votes out of the other body for raising revenue unless there's broad acceptance with the industry, with those who are regulated, and those who are concerned about preserving these essential services. there's an agreement within a broad s.w.a.t. of the industry to increase the fuel tax -- broad swath of the industry to increase the fuel tax. another critical area that the

bill is silent, we haven't ad justed for 10 years, is the ceiling on the passenger facility charge. and this isn't even a tax that congress imposes, this is simply an authorization for what local authorities can decide makes sense for their vital programs. madam chair, we don't have to choose between tens of thousands of job loss, putting the traveling public at risk, delaying essential efficiency improvements, and cuts to vital programs. or increasing the deficit. we can simply move forward with simple, common sense, broadly agreed upon proposals to adjust revenues, to have the flexibility, to make the investment that's going to make a difference for years to come

and make the difficult job of the chair and the ranking member and the two subcommittees, make that difficult job much easier. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from tennessee and also the chair of the highways subcommittee of transportation and infrastructure for three minutes, the balance of our time, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding me this timism rise in support of this bill and commend chairman mica and chairman petri because as a former chair of the aviation subcommittee, i know how difficult it is to bring all the competing interests together and produce a bill such as this. however, i would like to raise one issue that i still have some concerns about.

it's been brought to my attention by a former outstanding member of this body, jim coin, a former congressman from pennsylvania, who has been longtime head of the national air transportation soshese, a a -- association that some airports are competing with privately based fixed operators. i did not file an amendment because the chairman agreed to hold a round table discussion about this mat and begin working to make sure this does not become common place. i hope this is not a trend that will continue because privately owned businesses should not have to compete with government or quasi-governmental agencies such as airport authorities which do not pay taxes and are not subject to all the rules and regulations that private businesses are. each time there's been a white house conference on small business and they've held one on average every five years since 1955, either the number

one concern or one of the top three concerns of all these white house conferences on small business has been freedom from government competition. madam speaker, since the eisenhower administration in 1955, it's been u.s. policy or supposed to have been that government, quote, should not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such a product or service can be procured through private enterprise through ordinary business channels. that's my concern and we're going to continue working on that i also want to mention an amendment that will be filed later on behalf -- filed later by mr. shuster on behalf of myself and mr. meehan my colleagues from pennsylvania, a common sense amendment this amendment that we will be filing does two very simple things. it states the f.a.a. should not use a one size fits all approach when considering

deregulations. it also requires the f.a.a. to take into consideration the cost it is imposing on the private sector when issuing new regulations this amendment simply codifies some -- or much of an executive order issued by poth because ma on january 18 of this year. quoting from his -- from the president's executive order, the president said, our regulatory system, quote, must be based on the best available science, it must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas and promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. it must identify and use the most innovative an least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends and take into accounts benefits and costs both quantitative and qualitative. in addition, f.a.a. administrator rab dibabbitt stated it can make -- a one size fits all rule can make

aviation less safe. there are parts of the ave yage stray that face different challenges. i believe by facing these different challenges we can make aviation safer. finally, i would like to say that i agree with the chairman about overstaffing in regard to our aviation regulation. i am amazed, madam speaker, at how many members and private citizens have expressed concerns about t.s.a. overstaffing and have mentioned thousands standing around. the number of screeners has gone up from 16,000 prior to 9/11 to 61,000 now and that is simply far, far too many and that needs to be looked into and i know the chairman intends to do that. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from

oregon. mr. blumnary: may i inquire as to the time remaining for ways and means? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i ask that these two minutes be assigned to the gentleman from west virginia. the chair: without objection the gentleman from west virginia will control the time. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the lead democrat on our subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: unfortunately this legislation under the guise of being fiscally prudent is going to delay vital safety and capacity needs and enhancements to our aviation system, condemning future air travelers, even more congestion, more delays, more wasted fuel. it's going to cut an already inadequate inspection force, again threatening safety.

and then there are other provisions that are problematic. the gentleman from arizona may ask for a vote on an amendment to change the very fair and competitive language for national airport in the bill into an unfair earmark anticompetitive amendment that would give potentially 70% of long distance flights out of national airports to two airlines. and 50% to one airline. and he calls it competition. now, i don't know what planet he's from, but that's not competition. where i come from in a market that has very few opportunities for my people to access a national airport. and then finally a labor provision that was thrown in that says that anyone who chooses not to vote in an election will be counted as a no. now, the interesting thing is, if we have that same standard

for elections to the united states house of representatives, not one single member now sitting would have won their election. because it's not just the people who are registered to vote, it's anybody who's eligible to vote and if they don't vote or don't register to vote they count as a no. that would mean there would be no -- i mean, some people might be happy, there would be no house of representatives, but at least the sitting members would not be here. they want to apply that standard to representation for labor unions. that's incredibly unfair, short-sighted and overruled the national labor relations board. finally, essential air service. you know, we are supposed to have a system of universal air transport. it is critical to many rural communities like i represent to have a continuation of essential air service. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i understand that the ways and means committee is in

markup and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to claim their time, i believe that's five minutes on our side, and ask unanimous consent again that the transportation, infrastructure majority claim that time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from florida will claim the five minutes from the ways and means committee. mr. mica: thank you. and, madam chairwoman, i yield to a distinguished gentleman, one of the senior members of the t.n.i. committee and a leader on the judiciary committee, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. coble: i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of this bill which is signed without tax increases. the aviation sector needs certainty. we need to finish the task at hand. the manager's amendment considered a letter today included language that a will provide clarity for munitions -- musicians who travel with small instruments.

i'm not talking about standup basses or harps, current policy varies from airline to airline as to what instruments are permitted onboard. if the amendment strikes a delicate balance to ensure that musicians can attain certainty and safety. i'm appreciative to mr. mica, to mr. rahall and to all staffs who worked with me on this provision, thank them for its inclusion. i also support an amendment offered by mr. shuster that will help f.a.a. regulations conform to reasonableness and reality. this amendment requires the f.a.a. to recognize the distinctions between sectors of the aviation industry and total regulations to each sector's facts. it also conforms f.a.a. rule making to a number of good government principles such as cost benefit analysis, use of the best available information and consideration of regulatory

impacts on the economy. i again thank the distinguished gentleman from florida for having yielded to me. i would like to insert, madam speaker, without objection, the remainder of my statement into the record and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of our committee on transportation and infrastructure, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, madam chairman. this bill would drastically cut funding for f.a.a. programs, threatening the development of the nextgen air traffic control system and requiring a furlough of hundreds of safety-related employees. the bill also would change the national mediation board's election rules. airline and railroad workers would no longer vote for union representation by a majority of those voting, but by a majority of all those eligible to vote. it would be extremely undemocratic to thus count votes

not cast as no votes. no election in any free country does so and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike this provision. i also propose provisions -- oppose provisions for limitations on discovery. section 336 would block access to safety-related data through discovery and block use of such information in court. it is virtually unheard of for congress to simply declare that broad categories of information cannot be obtained by a party to a lawsuit or even used as evidence in a legal proceeding. section 337 provides immunity to airlines and their agents for any type of damages resulting from an event contemplated by a safety management system. these systems are designed to analyze virtually every kind of risk. so granting this immunity would make it impossible to hold an airline or individual accountable for negligence causing almost any accident. this liability shield would deprive engine -- injured victims of their rights. i find it hard to believe that

anybody thinks that airlines should be able to act with negligence and be free from liability should you or me or any other american be injured or maimed or killed as a result of the negligence. for all these reasons i must oppose the bill. however, i do want to thank chairman mica and congressman coble for including language in the manager's amendment to strengthen the provisions guaranteeing the right to carry or check musical instruments onto an airline. this is an issue i've worked on for many years and i'm very pleased to see it finally moving forward. i hope we continue the agreements and pass gg -- passage of a long-term bill. i look forward to working with my colleagues in that spirit but until the funding levels are increased, the safety and working provisions are in place, the poison pill provisions that have union votes are removed, i cannot support this bill. thank you and i yield yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and time has expired. mr. mica: might i inquire to how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from

florida has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from west virginia has two minutes remaining. mr. mica: i would like to reserve my time that i acquired on behalf of the ways and means committee to close and i believe if it's appropriate have the science committee which i think has yielded five minutes on each side go forward prior to my close. the chair: the gentleman from texas. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for up to five minutes. >> i rise in strong support of h.r. 658, legislation re-authorizing the federal aviation administration through fiscal year 2014. it re-authorizes the agency's research and development programs. it was drafted by the commerce on i believe science, space and technology as h.r. 970, the

federal aviation research and development re-authorization act of 2011. mr. hall: on march 17, the committee amended and approved h.r. 970, the rule accompanying h.r. 5 -- 658 amends the title. with regard to the funding, the title 10 in-- adheres to the same principles of the larger bill, providing authorization levels for research, engineering and development count of the fiscal year 2008 level for the fiscal years 2012 through 2014. for fiscal year 2011, the authorization is a hybrid of current spending under the continuing resolution and the f.y. 2008 level. further our bill authorizes spending for research and development activities that are funded through the agency's facilities and equipment and air force account. none of our members like cutting funding but members on our side

of the aisle were passionate in their belief as i am that we must reduce federal spending and the f.a.a. like every other federal agency must bear some burden and some measure of burden. research and development plays a critical role at f.a.a., providing the agency with the tools and technology it needs to carry out on a diverse set of missions, the largest r&d program currently under way supports development of a whole host of technologies required to ensure successful deployment of the next generation air transportation system. r&d also is fundamental to f.a.a.'s role in the safety of air travel, giving the agency the insight and data required to develop tools and policies guiding the introduction, use and maintenance of new materials and systems incorporated in the modern jet arke. these technologies are necessary -- aircraft. these technologies are necessary if we're to continue safety,

efficiency and security, especially considering the critical role played by aviation in our nation's economy and public safety. in addition, title 10 directs f.a.a. to undertake research in a number of areas including the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the national air space, research on runways and eng neared material restrain systems, research in unleaded fuel for the use in general aviation piston aircraft and on the development certification of jet fuel from alternative sources and research on the affects of aviation on the environment. there are many other activities too numerous to mention here, but i did want to provide examples to members of the broad sweep of f.a.a.-sponsored r&d. finally i understand that chairman mica's amendment offered to the bill seeks to modify certain provisions while also adding a few, a special specific provision amended existing law found in title 51

of the united states code regarding the office of commercial space transportation. i support the goal of this language with the understanding that the inclusion of this language does not author of jurisdiction of my committee on this issue and the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee will work with us to ensure this provision or similar provisions are preserved. they're preserved as we continue to move through the legislative process on h.r. 658, including any negotiations or conference with the other body. mr. speaker, in closing i want to urge all members to support this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maryland. mrs. christensen: madam chair, i rise to claim -- edsedseds madam speaker, i rise to claim the time. the f.a.a. re-authorization act is clear. ms. edwards: but h.r. 658

re-authorizes the f.a.a. for four years and the arbitrary spending cuts that are our republican colleagues have imposed on the agency in h.r. 658 will devastate f.a.a.'s ability to improve flying safety and to modernize a nation's air traffic control system. for this reason unfortunately i cannot support the bill. h.r. 658 proposes a 23%, an unbelievable 23% cut to f.a.a.'s research, engineering and development accounts from the funding levels enacted by congress for fiscal year 2010. these cuts are not related in any way to a lack of need for the research. in fact, the committee in multiple hearings acknowledged the need for the research. the congress has heard expert testimony from witnesses who stress the importance of investing in both research and development and in the nextgen modernization initiative and

have warned of the negative impact the cuts will have on the nation's air traffic control system and the flying public. to cut f.a.a.'s r&d efforts so drastically while we're trying to recover from a recession and while oil prices every day climb higher, with stifles with this industry and the millions of jobs it supports. what i -- i also want to be clear that the research and development work that's done at f.a.a. helps to protect the safety of all the flying public. these cuts to aviation safety-related research have a high probability of reducing the safety of our air transportation system. these affects may not be felt today or tomorrow but they will be felt and they will have serious consequences for the flying public. mr. chair, democratic members of the committee attempted to prevent the cuts to three key safety research initiatives at our committee's markup of h.r. 970. these amendments have a-- would have increased the four-year re-authorization amount by a total of $16 million. or less than 3% of the $600 million authorization in the bill, a small amount for such a

huge payoff. and as we noted in the committee markup, these costs really pail in comparison to even a single major aircraft accident, both in terms of money and the horrible loss of life. unfortunately our republican colleagues voted to reject each of these key safety amendments. and research amendments that go to safety. and the choice couldn't be more clear, our colleagues chose to make the flying public less safe in order to meet an arbitrary, very arbitrary goal for cutting federal spending. i share our colleagues' concern about the nation's deficit but we reject any notion that addressing the nation's deficit requires us to make our nation's transportation system less safe. as we move forward in negotiations with the senate over final f.a.a. re-authorization i remain committed to helping our air transportation system and hope our republican colleagues will join in this effort. in conclusion, i'd like to speak to a measure for a

provision in the underlying bill that has me greatly troubled and that has to do with union elections. it is staggering to me that we've decided that we're going to count no votes or not voting as a no vote. i just took a look at the winning numbers for our leadership. our speaker was elected in 2010 with 142,700 votes. his opponents and those who weren't registered totaled 482,170 votes. if we had used the same theory, the same strategy for our own elections and for the election of speaker boehner he would have lost that election by 339,000 votes, and that goes for each of us. and perhaps the public wants that. maybe we should all be counting nonvoting as no votes as we could completely change this house of representatives, but that's not the way we run elections and that's not the way that we should run union

elections. and so it's unfortunate that the majority has decided to put this poison pill into the underlying legislation that makes it unsupportable on this side of the aisle. and with that i would ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of our time to the ranking member on transportation and infrastructure, mr. rahall. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. edwards: how much time remains? the chair: 30 seconds remains for the gentlelady from maryland. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i yield to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. palazzo: i urge all members to support passage of h.r. 658, the f.a.a. re-authorization reform act of 2011. this is a good and balanced bill that will help safety programs at the f.a.a. and to

do so in a fiscally responsible manner. the space and aeronautics subcommittee, which i chair, held a hearing which focused on f.a.a.'s research activities. expert testimony spoke in general agreement about the importance of f.a.a.'s research and development portfolio. with the nonagency witnesses also offering constructive suggestions for improvement. of chief importance to the agency and industry is development and implementation of the next generation air transportation system program. nextgen will modernize our transportation system. this program cannot succeed without a well-structured, well-mannered program. to offer a few examples, currently there's research focused on increasing our weather prediction capability, research to better understand human factors in a highly automated environment. what we're asking f.a.a. to do

is prioritize and make choices. most folks in washington and at home understand we cannot afford business as usual. by increasing spending year after year. this bill is -- the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. all time has expired for the committee on science and technology. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from west virginia has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from florida has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me applaud the work of this committee and particularly mr. rahall and mr. costello who we worked very closely with. i serve as the ranking member on the transportation and security committee and i can't imagine a more perfect fit on the question of safety and security for our traveling public. i thank the chairman of the

full committee and others associated with this legislation. however disappointed i am and having to come to the floor and raise questions about our next step. and i am particularly devastated about the cuts in the f.a.a.'s next generation air traffic system, the nextgen. whenever you think of air traffic controllers i want you to think of first responders as i'll discuss an amendment regarding the issue of ensuring the kind of staffing needs necessary to engage in security. farther, since i have the largest airports in the country, bush intercontinental airport, which we were proud to name, i'm disappointed that the airport improvement fund has been cut. taxis, terminals. there is a thing of having that beautiful feeling of coming up but what about coming down and not -- may i have an additional 20 -- may i have 15 seconds?

mr. rahall: i yield 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i am disappointed that we would have a shuster amendment that would put a dent in the rulemaking. and then, of course, the costello-latourette amendment, which i support, how you can win by 70,000 and then you count the people that didn't vote and then lose by 150,000? let's be fair. let's have a bill that responds to the needs of all. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield 15 seconds for the purpose of unanimous consent request to chairman hall from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: i ask unanimous consent to enter a statement in support of mr. neugebauer's amendment into the record. i under it will be considered shortly and i support it. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i'm ready to close if the other side is ready. ok. i really appreciate the sincere

efforts of the chairman of my committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the subcommittee chairman, mr. petri, and our ranking democrat on the subcommittee, mr. costello. there have been serious efforts to work in a bipartisan way, but i fully realize that on the majority's side a lot of these decisions, a lot of these funding levels are not necessarily made by the chairman of the full committee and the ranking -- the chairman of the subcommittee. we read about other forces that are out there on the majority's side. i also recognize that a lot of these decisions are made at levels higher than the chairman's, at levels higher than which airplanes fly. and so this is not all necessarily the chairman's fault. i think it would be fair to warn the body that the administration has issued their position on this legislation and they say that if funding were appropriated at levels proposed in the bill, it would

be degraded today and in the future. and more importantly, the administration has reiterated its opposition to the poison pill labor provisions in this bill. if the president is presented with the bill that will not safeguard the ability of airport and railroad workers to decide whether or not they would be rented by a union based upon the ballots cast in an election or would degrade safe and efficient air travel, his senior advisors recommend he veto the bill. mr. speaker, i ask that the house do not accept this bill. we do have amendments that will come later in the amendment pro spess that i want to reference very quickly at this point including the one that will allow more flyovers at sports events. mr. mica: i yield the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i appreciate the chairman. this would go after to ban institute after 9/11 that prohibit flyovers at sports events for safety reasons. so that comes later on in an amendment process, and i think it just shows the threats that

we are posing to our safety the air traveling public if this were to pass as it is. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: well, thank you, mr. chairman. and as we close debate on the long overdue f.a.a. re-authorization, first, i have to thank my co-partner in this, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall. he is a gentleman. it's great to work with him. i have to thank, also, mr. petri, the chair of the aviation subcommittee. he and mr. costello, two gentlemen worked hard to bring the bill to this point. it's been a struggle for four years and now to get here, but i'm pleased that we're at this point. there are differences of opinion about the bill. i have to take a moment and thank the staff on both sides. they're great and that they're working together to get us to this point and we'll debate the

amendments and the differences and then we'll hopefully pass this and get people working and get our aviation policies secured for the nation. i have to thank mr. rahall, the chairman of the science and technology committee, for his provisions to make certain that research in aviation is done. mr. camp. mr. camp brought a proposal here from ways and means. doesn't raise taxes. it doesn't increase fees. there's no passage of facility increase. so those kinds of things, we brought a bill -- it does have $59 billion over four years. this isn't small potatoes. and it can if properly expended and wisely applied can do well for the nation, ensuring safety in programs that are so important and moving jobs that are so critical. 9.2% -- 9.3% of our economy depends on this legislation. the colloquy between mr. shuster, the gentlelady from

south dakota, ms. noem, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. thompson from pennsylvania on essential air service, i understand their concerns and their great advocacy for their constituents and making certain that service is there. we do have a sunset provision. we'll work with them and we'll do our best, but i agree to work with them and i reconfirm that here. finally, letters of support. you heard the other side say that nobody supports this. i have a list of 45 major agencies -- i ask unanimous consent -- i'm sorry -- associations. every major organization. aviation industry. i ask unanimous consent that be submitted in the record. and letter of support for marion blakely. their support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. mica: well, thank you. thank you. so in conclusion, you know,

we're doing here something that needs to be done. this is very important. it's been left aside. 17 extensions. the other side, of course, had huge majorities to do this, almost by unanimous consent with the president. now the president is threatening to veto this. i'm not going to say, make my day, but i want to say that this is a fair provision, fair to everyone and labor. fair to everyone who wants to join a labor union, to keep 70 years of law that's been on the books. and not to change it as you jerry rigged the membership of the national mediation board. so let's be fair going in, fair going out. and the provision we have in the bill creates fairness. i'm pleased to yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from florida has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, in lieu

of the amendment in nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on transportation and infrastructure printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting in the text of the rules committee printed date march 22, 2011. the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-46. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the opponent -- proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mica: i have a manager's amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-46

offered by mr. mica of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: well, the manager's amendment is pretty simple. first of all, we have tried to accommodate as many members as we could with their requests and include on both sides of the aisle provisions that they requested that weren't in the original submission. additionally, the manager's amendment makes technical corrections to provisions in the underlying bill, including those related to unmanned aircraft system, adsb readiness verification, flight attendant fatigue, f.a.a. access to criminal records' database and also, as mr. coble, who is with us earlier, just a small accommodation for another member who wanted musical instruments, some provisions,

again, in the bill. so we tried to accommodate many of the members who had these requests. the manager's amendment also contains provisions regarding public-private partnerships to advance nextgen. if the government does it, it usually doesn't get done. if we have public-private partnerships and closely monitor that we can have great successes, reduce cost and bring technology out of line that makes it even safer for people to fly at lower costs and with less personnel. there are protections for voluntary safety, data submissions. we also have proa provision that's very important for european union emissions trading scheme. this is very important because they are trying to close us down or tax us as we enter some of their air space. we've had an agreement that the airports renew liability protections for volunteer pilot organizations, for public flight -- public benefit flights and also for privacy protections for

air space users and also finally the safe shipment of lithium batteries. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from west virginia seek time in opposition? mr. rahall: yes, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to the manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, our distinguished chairman, mr. mica. for a couple, two key concerns. first is that the amendment would basically create a liability shield for airlines and airports that are negligent and cause airplane clashes. last year congress directed the f.a.a. to require airlines to implement safety management systems. using these systems, airlines will use data to identify risks and improve safety. the f.a.a. is likely to acquire airports to adopt similar systems. under this, adoption of a safety management system would give airlines and airports a total pass on liability for their

ordinary negligence. it would deprive passengers and their families of the right to seek compensation for damage caused by airline crashes. the right to go to court and seek compensation for damage caused by the negligence of another person including an airline or airport is an intrinsic part of our law. this amendment would take that right away and i cannot support it. my last concern is about a provision in the amendment dealing with lithium batteries. the transport of lithium bat riss without appropriate safety checks -- batteries without appropriate safety checks has been proven to present hazards that could bring down an airplane. this would lock the united states into filing international standards on transporting lithium batteries that set the floor, not the bar, that we should aspire to. it would prevent airlines from conducting acceptance checks of battery shipments and it would derail essential rule makings by the department of transportation to ensure that lithium batteries

are transported safely. for these two reasons, mr. chairman, i cannot support the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i reserve my time to close on my amendment. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has -- also has three minutes remaining. mr. rahall: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. this amendment would extend the moratorium on safety regulations for human space flight launches for eight years after the first licensed human space flight launch. with these flights likely not to begin until 2013, we're talking about delaying safety regulations for a decade or more. let me first say that i hope that commercial space flight, both manned and unmanned, eventually will become a robust sector of our economy.

we're not quite there yet. but certainly some of these companies in this emerging industry openly talk about flying a business model -- a business model of flying, allowing hundreds of paying passengers to space every year. these are ambitious goals and i wish them well. i hope i'm one of them. but if these companies are successful and start carrying paying passengers like me, then what we're talking about with this amendment is allowing an entire human transportation system to operate for almost a decade without any meaningful safety regulations. i find that to be unconscionable. i would point out that by rejecting the amendment, congress is not dictating that any safety regulations have to be promulgated. on the contrary, under current law an absolute prohibition exists until 2012, the end of 2011. even after that -- 2012. even after that point, the agency would not be crired to move forward with a rule making process but would only do so if it saw need. but imposing arbitrary prohad i had bigs on safety regulations for the remainder of the decade

is not longer really advocates our responsibility to the public. if there's a fatal accident later in this decade, if we're carrying astronauts and there's an accident in the decade, i don't want it to be said that congress blocked the establishment of safety regulations that could have prevented that accident and i don't think many members in this body would either. i'd note that it's my understanding that the science, space and technology committee is planning on holding hearings this session on this very topic, with an eye toward moving a bill to address these issues sometime in this congress. and so we're really premature here to set in place a moratorium that we haven't even had a chance to hear debate on and hear from the industry or the f.a.a. or safety experts on the subject. i hope this isn't the kind of rush to judgment that will come to -- we'll come to expect on issues of public safety. i have some familiarity with these issues on science, space and tech nofplgt the commercial space folks argue that -- technology. the commercial space folks argue that concepts are not quite

mature enough and there's been no operational experience on which to base the safety regulations. fair enough. that may be true. but these same people are also arguing that the industry is mature enough for the government to turn over nasa's transport of astronauts in space to them. you cannot have it both ways and these notions are mutually exclusive. if the industry is mature enough to take on tasks currently performed by the government, then the industry is mature enough to begin thinking about a safety regime to ensure the american public is protected this these activities. mr. chair, i want to note that once again there's no reason to rush to judgment on these issues and with that i yield the balance of my toim-- time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: is there any remaining time on the other side or may i close? the chair: the time of -- in opposition to the amendment has expired. mr. mica: thank you. then to close on the manager's amendment which i have offered today, first of all, let me just say that the two objections that

have been raised again by the minority and i appreciate their concerns, the safety reporting which we put in some years ago is actually resulted in probably the safest system that we've had in the world and the safest safety record in history. if you stop and think about it, i chaired the aviation subcommittee, the last large commercial aircraft that we had that went down unfortunately was near veteran's day of 2001, after 9/11. safety reporting is so important and it's done on a voluntary basis and it's so important that the people who collect this data are not held liable. they're collecting the data that benefits us to make this safe. this has worked, it's kept us safe and we want to ensure again that this continues and some will say, while we had commuter, yes, we did have commuter and we passed commuter safety legislation to deal with

problems we have there. so we have a safe system, we don't want to stop that, we don't want the recruiting of the data to stop that. that's the first point. the second point, lithium batteries. this is a lithium battery. this has a lithium battery in it, this is a pacemaker this keeps your heart going. this has a lithium battery. laptops have lithium batteries, almost everything has lithium batteries and of course leave it to the d.o.t. to put in -- try to put in place rules that would create stopping, you know, granny, grandpa and others that need this pacemaker from getting it. if we didn't have this provision in here, it would be a $1.1 billion impact on industry. we'd put the shipment of these things through other chris -- countries. countless consumers are being forced to pay more because of

silly regulations that don't make any sense. a severe supply chain would be -- and limitations on supply would be imposed. and we'd have delays in shipping life-saving equipment. this little thing here that saves hearts, that's what they want to mess up. one more federal regulation to delay shipping, even our troops which rely on the lithium battery, they're receiving them would be put at risk, the way d.o.t. is doing it. this is a good provision, it needs to be in the bill and we've got to keep some of the regulation that put us out of business, put jobs overseas and put people at ritz -- risk out of our way. so i dramatically urge the house to pass the manager's amendment with these sound provisions that will make a big difference and again ask for consideration of the manager's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

all time has expired. the question is about the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i ask for the roll call. the yeas and nays. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-46. for which purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-46 offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. chairman, my amendment requires airport operators as a condition for receiving grants under the airport improvement program to

consult on a regular basis with representatives of the local community regarding airport operations and their impact on the community. airports and airport operations have a profound impact on the communities that surround them. airplanes take off and landings can make noise that interrupt families and their homes and workers in their offices, daytime takeoffs can interrupt school children rowho are trying to learn and teachers who are trying to teach. nighttime takeoffs can make it difficult for local residents to sleep. jet fuel emissions and other harmful pollutants crnt to air pollution and traffic congestion surrounding an airport adds to the noise and to the pollution. needless to say, airports play an important role in our economy and our society. but airport operators should make every possible effort to be good neighbors in their communities. being a good neighbor means consulting with the local

community regarding airport operations. it means minimizing the night-time takeoffs and landings so that residents can sleep. it means assisting families with residential noise mitigation programs such as retrofitting windows, doors, sidings and insulation to help keep aircraft noise to a minimum. it means consulting with local residents and small businesses regarding plans to expand, upgrade or realign airport facilities and listening to their concerns. my amendment requires airport operators that receive airport improvement program grants to consult on a regular basis regarding airport operations and their impact on the community. airport operators would be required to include in these consultations local residents who are impacted by airport operations, airport operators could specifically be required

to include any organization the members of which includes at least 20 people who reside within 10 miles of the airport, that notifies the operator of its desire to be consulted. this amendment is not overly burdensome for airports and it does not cost money for the federal government. it merely requires airport operators to be good neighbors and it holds them accountable to the communities that they serve. mr. chairman, and members, i have one of the world's largest airports -- airports in my district and they do a good job but i'm constantly contacted by residents in the surrounding community who are raising questions about new plans, new operations, airport noise and other kinds of things that if the airport operators were in communications with the communities in some kind of

formalized way, they have a better understanding. it's not that these neighbors are saying we don't want these airports. as a matter of fact it is job intensive and we like the idea that the people who work there are able not only to earn a good living but they live in the community, they contribute to the economy of the community. we're simply just talking about urging and encouraging a relationship where the airport operator shares with the schools and with the resident what is they're doing, often times it would just make for a better understanding and it's not always controversial, it's not always confrontational, but it is a shining -- it is shining a light on what's going on and getting people operating and understanding the operations of the airport.

so with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin in opposition to the amendment? mr. petri: yes, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: i would like my colleague from california to know that we recognize that this is a very well intended amendment and it's addressing a concern, there's a tremendous airport in your area, you have a later amendment that deals with the same subject that we think is more workable and better. the concern we have has to do with -- there are a number of provisions in law already requiring airports to consult with local communities in a variety of situations. and we're just afraid this particular amendment could be more of a one-size-fits-all approach across the country that could create problems

rather than solving them. and, therefore, we're looking forward to working with you on amendment number 32 but i do oppose the current amendment as it being too broad. ms. waters: will the gentleman yield? mr. petri: yes. ms. waters: do i understand the other amendment that i have coming up that's more specific to los angeles is something that you would be more inclined to cooperate on rather than this amendment? mr. petri: yes. ms. waters: well, that's fine, because i do know that this amendment that i'm offering is a national amendment that would cause all of the airports to come in compliance with this kind of cooperative effort. and if in fact the gentleman is offering cooperation on the next amendment i would withdraw this one. mr. petri: thank you. we thank you with the understanding. the chair: does the gentlelady ask unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment? ms. waters: yes.

the chair: is there objection? seeing none, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does -- ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to put amendment number 31 in the -- the chair: amendment number 31, pursuant to the rule, is not in order at this time. ms. waters: mr. chairman, that is the amendment that the gentleman just agreed cooperation on. is there some mistake here? the chair: the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be considered later. ms. waters: thank you. it will come later. thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto ricoo seek recognition? -- from puerto rico seek recognition? mr. pierluisi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. pierluisi from puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to the resolution, mr. pierluisi and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment will allocate annual formula grants to airports in puerto rico for capital development and planning. the amendment is simple and straightforward and serves to clarify current law. it ensures at a minimum the secretary will allocate formula grants under the airport improvement program to airports in puerto rico no differently than the secretary alindicates such grants to other airports throughout the united states. the amendment also ensures that the secretary will not be precluded from any reason for making projects from the discretionary fund under the

airport improvement program. and the amendment makes clear that formula grants and discretionary grants for airports in puerto rico shall not be deemed mutually exclusive. it's critical to note that the airport improvement program is funded by a variety of user fees and few taxes, all of which apply in puerto rico. so there is no reasonable basis to treat puerto rico less than equally under the program. especially since aviation serves such a critical role on the island. puerto rico is a noncontiguous u.s. jurisdiction located 1,000 flight miles from the nearest large hub airport in the air transportation network. accordingly, puerto rico is heavily dependent on airways. the main airport in san juan is ranked among the top 50 commercial service airports in the united states in terms of

the number of passenger boardings. averaging over 4 1/2 million boardings each year. in addition to travel to and from the mainland of the united states, residents of puerto rico and visitors to the island rely on air service to travel to points within the main island of puerto rico and between the main island and other outer island municipalities. apart from the san juan international airport, puerto rico's home to five other commercial service airports located in four other areas and we have five other general aviation airports serving smaller communities. according to the f.a.a., approximately $285 million is needed over the next five years to bring puerto rico's airports up to the current standards. at capacity to meet protected needs and to improve safety. my amendment simply ensures, mr. chairman, that puerto rico's public user ports can

access essential federal funding on the same terms as airports elsewhere in the country. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: although i claim time in opposition, i am going to speak in support of this amendment. i have the greatest respect for the delegate, congressman from puerto rico. also highest esteem governor fortuno, former delegate, representative of this body, two great young leaders. and he's here today trying to ensure that puerto rico is treated like any other airport in the united states. in terms of airport improvement programs, and i think he -- his amendment clarifies that puerto

rico also remains eligible for grants from the a.i.p. discretionary fund. i also know mr. pierluisi is willing to work with me on his other amendment, which deals with essential air service. and i had offered to work with other members, and i'll state for the record that i will work with him and i'm hoping if he offers it he'll withdraw it because i'm going to support this amendment, and i think he has a good amendment here and i'd like to work with him on his other provision, but i would hope that he would work with us in that regard. so this amendment simply provides clear direction to the f.a.a. that puerto rico airports should be treated equitably and i will support this amendment at this time and urge a yes vote. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. mica: highly time is remaining on each side?

the chair: the gentleman from florida has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from puerto rico has yielded back his time. mr. pierluisi: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from puerto rico has two minutes remaining. mr. mica: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: i thank the gentleman from florida even though he rises in opposition -- i'm pleased that as the chairman of the jurisdiction is supporting this amendment. so under these circumstances, i ask him if he has any other -- if he expects anybody -- any other member to make a statement on the floor? mr. mica: i don't. i was hoping that you -- the gentleman from puerto rico would be willing to work with me on his other amendment, and i'm sure he will, but i still will support his amendment because i'm that kind of a guy.

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: i'll simply say that i will have some time to consider your offer to work with you on my other amendment which is not now on the floor, but until then i simply urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from puerto rico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment's adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hirono: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4

print the in house report 112-46 offered by ms. hirono of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hirono: thank you. i rise to speak in favor of this amendment. geographically, hawaii is the world's most isolated archipelago. it is the only u.s. state made up completely of islands. there are four counties in hawaii, all of which are separated by a body of water. air travel is the fastest and most effective means of transportation between our islands. it is also the mode of transportation that we rely on most for moving goods and other cargo and even our daily mail. the 15 airports operated by the airports division of the hawaii department of transportation are responsible for maintaining safe and efficient facilities that accommodate approximately 25 million passengers a year.

this is a tremendous responsibility and an ongoing challenge. it is because of the fundamental role that air travel plays in the day-to-day lives of the people of hawaii and commerce of hawaii that congress saw fit to provide the state wan exemption from charging passenger facility fees or p.f.c.'s, on interisland flights. these are the flights between our islands. this exemption is important for hawaii residents. without it for many the daily commute would be unduly burdensome. i know a lot of people who live on oahu who commute to work on other islands. it would be as if you your other constituents got in your car to go to work and pay $4.50, which is our p.f.c. fee, to leave your driveway and pay another $4.50 upon your return. while we preserve this exemption, there have been

unintended consequences with regard to its impact on federal funds for hawaii's airports. this is because of the way that p.f.c.'s impact the formula funding that is a portion to each state under the airport improvement program, or the a.i.p. as my colleagues know, a.i.p. grants are awarded to each state based on a formula. for airports that opt to collect p.f.c.'s formula funds are cut by either 50% or 75%. this reduction depends on the amount of p.f.c. charged. for airports that assess p.f.c.'s on 100% on their passengers, this arrangement works well. however, in the case of hawaii, the two airports that collect p.f.c.'s only collect them on a portion of the passengers at these airports. at our large hub airport in honolulu, 38% of our passengers are interisland travelers. interisland travelers also constitute 51% of the

passengers served by our medium hub at the airport on maui. therefore, the $4.50 p.f.c. being assessed at honolulu is only being paid by 62% of its passengers. and on maui, that amount is only 49% of the passengers. based on the current formula, the hawaii department of transportation cal could you lates that the state is losing approximately $5.7 million this year in a.i.p. formula entitlement funds. my amendment would change the formula under which hawaii's p.f.c.'s and entitlements are calculated to correct this inequity. i want to be clear to my colleagues, this amendment is intended only to ensure that hawaii gets its full fair share under the -- it would be subject to the same 75% reduction as any other airport charging a $4.50 p.f.c. the calculation will simply

take into account the percentage of passengers traveling interisland and therefore not pay a p.f.c. i also want to point out that this is not a windfall for the state or in my view an earmark. in fact, house rule 21, clause 9, paragraph e, the definition for earmark defines an earmark essentially as any member requested federal assistance -- mr. petri: will the gentlelady yield? ms. hirono: other than to a statutory or administrative formula. mr. petri: will the gentlelady -- ms. hirono: i'm sorry. i was so intent on -- mr. petri: will the gentlelady yield? we've reviewed your amendment and based on the recommendation of the f.a.a. i think chairman mica and i are prepared to accept your amendment. we would also ask, however, that you consider working with us on the amendment that you've intended to offer later.

it's in an area that is already within the f.a.a.'s jurisdiction where they're working but not as hard as we would like. we think we could continue to work with you on that. but we would accept this amendment. ms. hirono: i want to thank the chair -- subcommittee chair petri for that and mr. mica for accepting my amendment. i would like to reserve. am i over my five minutes? the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. ms. hirono: thank you very much. i do want to offer my other amendment, however. the chair: does any member rise in opposition? the gentleman from florida. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: i rise in opposition. i actually will support the amendment but wanted to give the gentlelady an additional minute to conclude if she had any remarks. as i said, we're very willing to work with her on her next amendment and hope she would consider working with us and we will support this amendment, but i would like to yield, if i may,

mr. chairman, as much time as she needs to finish her statement. ms. hirono: thank you very much, mr. chair. in view of the fact that you are in agreement with my amendment, i would, if you would be so kind as to yield a minute of your time for my colleague to submit her remarks on this amendment. mr. mica: i'm pleased to allow them to submit their -- the chair: does the gentleman yield time to -- mr. mica: yes, i'll be glad to submit time. we are taking the amendment and i know she's going to work with us, but i also would be pleased to yield to her colleague, our colleague. ms. hanabusa: thank you. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to chair across the way for doing this wonderful gesture. i'd like to thank congresswoman

hirono for offering this amendment and it does address the unique nature of hawaii. hawaii's people have only really one way for commercial travel between our islands and that is by way of air. so what this has done is it's leveled the playing field for us in terms of the ability to have our fair share of the airport improvements but in addition to do the best thing we do is to protect our consumers. so thank you again for agreeing to the amendment and thank you to mazie for offering it. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: reclaiming my time. i ask that this letter in support of the bill be submitted for the record. the chair: the submission will be considered in general leave. mr. mica: unless the gentlelady needs more time, i'm prepared to support this amendment that is pending.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 precipitationed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. neugebauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-46 you are aed -- offered by mr. neugebauer of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman mica and chairman hall and congressman graves for their support on this amendment. i appreciate the work from the transportation and infrastructure committee and various stakeholder groups that have helped through this amendment process. you know, in recent years our lives and our world has changed. we have atch more digital world

today and we have a lot more towers that provide cell service, internet service. we have a new industry that is basically taking over a big core of my district and it's the wind energy industry, so over the countryside the landscape has changed and we have a lot of new towers and wind mills and wind turbines and all sorts of things that are beneficial to our economy but also who provide a certain amount of hazard for those people in the aviation industry. in recent years we've had a number of fatalities due to low-flying avegaters that didn't know of the existence of one of these obstacles. so one of the things that this amendment does is really it's a commonsense thing that says it makes sense for the f.a.a. to conduct a study of how we can put together a database of where these new obstacles are, giving their g.p.s. location, allowing

people to access that information that are going to be flying in that area or using -- utilizing that area. also providing an opportunity for planning purposes for new infrastructure in those areas. so we really think that this is a very commonsense amendment, provides for safety and that this study hopefully will yield some very positive results that will be beneficial to the aviation industry. and with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who climbs time in opposition to the amendment? -- claims time in opposition to the amendment? the gentlelady from florida. mr. brown: i ask time to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mr. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank -- ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the members for their work in bringing this to the floor.

i think that the aviation communities deserve a long-term avengation bill so that they can plan for the future need of the traveling public. we have had 18 extensions already and it is time for the house and the senate to find a compromise and send the bill to the president. sadly we're missing a great opportunity to invest in our airports and allowing them to prepare for the expected growth in the air traffic and put people to work improving our aviation infrastructure. without additional p.f.c. revenue and a.m.t. relief, airports will have low capital to invest in their facilities. we keep talking about creating jobs and rebuilding the economy but we don't do anything about it. my home state of florida rely on air service to support our tourist-based economy. we have 20 primary airports, 22 relief airports and 57 general aviation airports. with our top three airports generating nearly $45 million a

year. these airports create jobs and help grow the economy. and we're not going to get out of the recession we're in by starving our airports of funds for our infrastructure. this bill does address an important issue in my district by preserving access to the military airport program, m.a.p. it provides critical program to those supports which have given the responsibility of converting close military bases to civilian use. the participation of an airport which is just outside of jacksonville is the primary example of how this program can successfully transform from military air field to commercial service and help churn and strengthen the nation's aviation system. in the cafse field which continues to include uses by the air national guard and the reserve unit, making this a win-win for the community and for the military, and i want to

add that we have more land now than we did before we turn the facility over. m.a.p. grants also support probablies that are generally not eligible for a.i.p. fund buzz which are typically needed for successful civilian convergence such as surface parking lots, fuel farms, hangers, utility system, access road and cargo buildings. i know this bill still have a long way to go in the process, so i hope we can make improvements as we move to conference and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield a minute to the distinguished chairman of the house transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. mica. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: thank you. i just rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. he has worked with the committee in drafting this amendment, done

an excellent job and we also have the support of f.a.a. on this amendment so we're supportive and i ask everyone to join in the passage of this well-crafted amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: it's also my pleasure now to yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farne holt. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you. i rise in support of this amendment as well with off the shelft available technology, this type of mapping can be done at little or no cost, increasing safety to aviation, especially those involved in rural aviation like crop dusters and the like. i'll yield back the balance of my time. mr. neugebauer: thank you. now, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the chairman of the house small business committee, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 30 seconds.

mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to rise in support, very strong support, of the gentleman's amendment. having flown for over 20 years, i've had firsthand experience with low altitude or low level obstacles that are out there. i had to make some last-minute corrections just to avoid them. if we had some way to understand where those obstacles are, a very simple method, it would greatly improve safety. just in the crop duster world alone we've had nine deaths in the last 10 years from obstacles that are unmarked, unlighted and we don't have any idea where they are. so i would very much be in support of this amendment and i thank the gentleman for offering it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. chairman. i think -- did they yield back over there? i would close by saying this is a very commonsense amendment. i think it uses the technology today to bring air safety to our country and i would encourage all members to support this amendment and with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. notice opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. loebsack: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the chair will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 offered by mr. lobiondo of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to start by thanking chairman mica, i'd like to also thank mr. petri and mr. costello and this is a very simple amendment. that allows the f.a.a. to assist in establishing the next generation research and development center of excellence. the center would leverage the f.a.a.'s existing centers of

excellence program, a program that relies on university partnerships to address ongoing f.a.a. research and development challenges. the next generation of research and development, the nextgen research and development center of excellence would provide educational, technical and analytical assistance to the f.a.a. and other agencies involved in the development of nextgen. in essence it would be a force multiplier. the nextgen is a complete revamping of our national air space system from the current radar-based system to a state-of-the-art satellite or g.p.s.-based technology. once fully implemented, nextgen will provide a host of benefits for more precise tracking of aircraft, fuel savings and noise reduction. as a result, the entire aviation community would be benefited as would the nation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. mr. lobiondo: i yield time to the chairman of the committee, mr. petri. mr. petri: thank you. i rise in support of this amendment and i know the chairman of the full committee has looked at it and supports it as well. it gives the administrator the ability to have a nextgen center on a competitive basis and it would be a good and needed resource for the f.a.a. and therefore i would urge a yes vote on the amendment. mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from illinois claim time in opposition to the amendment? >> mr. chairman, i do although i will not object. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. we support the gentleman's amendment. this is a provision that was contained in the f.a.a. bill that was passed, h.r. 915 and h.r. 1586, that passed this congress with bipartisan support. we strongly support the gentleman and ask our colleagues to support it as well.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lob beyondow: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? gator gator i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant that house resolution 189, the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. to the chair, i shall be brief on this. i urge my colleagues to suppor