this amendment which is actually longer amendment than just the garrett amendment. it's the garrett-himes-andrews-engel amendment in it the f.a.a.'s new york, new jersey, philadelphia air space redesign plan, which would redirect thousands of flights per year over the houses of many of my constituents and the constituents of the other sponsors of the bill as well. looking at this rewe realize this is a very real and negative impact upon the region including a potential for a decrease in home values. new flight patterns which would be considered here over the region should not be implemented until a thorough study of alternatives is presented to congress. this amendment ploibts the f.a.a. from continuing implementation of the airspace redesign until it has conducted a study on alternative designs to do -- who reduce delays at the airports considered in the redesign. finally, it is imperative that the f.a.a. consider the concerns of the people that are

and have been afflicted by this action. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. garrett: i reserve my time. the chair: who claims time in opposition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: mr. chairman and my colleagues, i have the greatest respect for the gentleman from new jersey and i understand his predicament. he's been one of the strongest advocates for his district and some of the potential problems that might arise from airspace redesign. i had the opportunity to travel to the gentleman's district and meet with his constituents who raised great concerns about the new york airspace redesign. now, this study -- this does put in place another study of the airspace redesign, and

unfortunately it delays implementation of airspace redesign in the northeast corridor and that new york airspace until it's complete. that's why i have to oppose this. i'll work with the gentleman to make certain that f.a.a. treats them fairly and that there are hearings. i've had 120 hearings. i've been in every jurisdiction from pennsylvania, philadelphia, all the way up into connecticut which is part of the new york airspace in hearings and public meetings. there have been over 120 f.a.a. meetings. this has been drug through the courts, and finally there were suits and they were all consolidated. the issues, again, were resolved, and f.a.a. should go forward with airspace redesign and address the concerns -- continue to address the concerns of the gentleman.

why is this important to everyone here? because more than 70% of the chronically delayed flights around the united states start in the new york airspace. that means when new york goes down the whole country starts going down. now, you got to understand that this battle has been going on for nearly two decades and in and out of court for the redesign. so what we're left is a corridor for airspace that is sort of like having u.s. one going into new york city 20 or 30 years ago and not expanding or revising the capacity. so that's why we have this situation. that's why i strongly urge not the adoption of this, willing to work with the gentleman, and try to, again, make certain that the -- we do have quality aircraft. when we started this debate,

and i don't want him or his constituents to suffer, anyone in the new york airspace, that this has to come to a conclusion. again, it effects everyone in the house of representatives because all 70 -- more than 70% of the chronically delayed flights start in this area and we have not been able to resolve this question. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: can you tell us how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has four minutes. mr. garrett: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, first. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman and i rise in strong support of his amendment. it's the garrett-himes-andrews-engel amendment. it will require the federal aviation administration to study alternatives to the new york-new jersey-philadelphia airspace redesign and prohibit the f.a.a. from continuing the implementation of the airspace redesign until a new study is

submitted to congress. i have to take issue with what my friend, the chairman, said before. we have not found that there were hearings for this. this has been trying to -- they've been trying to jam this through and want less and less people to know about it. i forced them to come into my district. until that happened they didn't want any kind of input from the community. i have opposed this airspace redesign from day one and afforded its implementation every step of the way. time and time again the f.a.a. has ignored the concerns of my constituents in rockland county, new york. this plan, which will only save minutes on flight time, but it will disrupt the lives of thousands of residents in my district to live under the new flight path. as my constituents have noted to me, the noise and air pollution in the area will increase. it's unknown how this increws in air pollution will affect the disproportionate rate of childhood asthma in my district. we need to keep pace with the

increased number of flights and to also maintain our technological advancements by implementing new equipment to keep our system the safest in the world. however, there are several alternatives to this plan. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that would require the f.a.a. to take them into consideration. we now learn that not only planes landing in newark will fly over my constituents but planes taking off from kennedy as well. this is a double whammy. it's not fair. so i commend mr. garrett, i support this amendment, i will continue to oppose the f.a.a. re-authorization until the f.a.a. halts and revises the airspace redesign and reports to congress. after all, we are' the ones that report to the people. -- we're the ones that report to the people. they should report to us, the f.a.a. should report to us. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 1 -- recognized for a minute and a half. mr. himes: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the amendment

that's at the desk. the redesign of the airspace over new york-new jersey, philadelphia to improve our air travel. the redesign was badly implemented from the start and used flawed prors. plans for this redesign have moved forward without proper input from stakeholders and without regard to the parties who are affected, notably, many of my constituents. planes have been rerouted to fly over southwestern connecticut upon dissent into new york airports, my stwets have begun to hear unprecedented noise levels. not a day goes by that i don't hear this from my constituents. i call upon the f.a.a. to simply study alternatives. we know that there are good alternatives. this should be done prudently and carefully. families move to my district to find a quiet refuge are now faced with the prospect of daily disturbances. alternatives must be considered before any more action must be

taken. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: well, again -- how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. mica: again, i have to say that i have the greatest respect for the gentleman, mr. garrett, the gentleman from new jersey, the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from nork -- new york, and they all have interest here and they are trying to protect them and they're concerned about noise with the new york airspace redesign. again, this has been going on for two decades. we have a very narrow corridor. we do need to redesign it. we have safety questions now. we have the delays, chronic delays, 70% of them imnate from new york. they start and then ripple across the country. so 70% of the members are

impacted by this particular provision. i appreciate their concern and asking for additional study, but what they do is in the provisions they offered is delay implementation. we've just finished numerous court cases which were consolidated, which ruled against those in question, and i know it's difficult but we've got to get this done. again, i so much appreciate their looking out for their constituents, stating their concern and expressing in every way possible. i will continue to work with them and make certain that there is fairness to the implementation and whatever they adopt does not disturb or unduly cause distress for their constituents. that's all i can do, but i do have to oppose this amendment in the interest of the committee, the country and the other members. 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. garrett: and just to conclude then, mr. speaker, the f.a.a. airspace redesign plan has not been responsive, as we've heard from the floor, to the concerns of our constituents and it's not been comprehensive. secondly, redesigning airspace will have little effect on delays while alternatives are considered. finally, i have -- i want a study conduct on alternative redesigns. with that i encourage support of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the 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 noes have it. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-46.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i thank maybe the gentleman from oregon, sir. please. the chair: thank you very much. it is now in order to consider -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-45. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. mr. speaker, my amendment is quite simple. it would require criminal

background checks of mechanics at contract aircraft repair stations, both those domestically and those overseas. now, the current law requires that people who repair aircraft at airports undergo criminal background checks that are quite extensive because there's a concern. if they have access to airplanes that we want to know who they are, be sure they don't have a criminal background and they can be denied employment for a large range of former felonies or problems, let alone any affiliation with terrorist groups. not so at domestic contract repair stations or foreign contract repair stations. the employees there undergo no criminal background checks. the only criminal background checks at the discretion at the employer. they can be certified to do the most critical work, overhauls

on airplanes the now, just think about it. you know, as john pistoli recently said. he's the head of the transportation security administration. for over two decades, al qaeda and other terrorist organizations have sought to do harm in this country. many of their plots against the united states have focused on the aviation system. it's clear that terrorists intent to strike american targets have not diminished yet we're not doing criminal and security background checks on people who have access to the enterings of the plane. they could replace one critical component, a bolt that holds on an engine, with one that looks like a real bolt which is fake and designed to fail. that could easily happen. and yet we are not requiring that they have background checks. well, if -- why are we requiring it at airports if it's so critical and mechanics that can have access a plane at the airport, why is it not

critical that people can go in there overseas far away from any prospective oversight by the t.s.a. or the f.a.a.? now, some would say the transportation security administration, seven years after the fact, is working on a rule that will require them to adopt general procedures for security but it will not require criminal or terrorist background checks. they will verify background information through confirmation of prior employment. yes, i used to work for osama bin laden. i -- here is his number. you can call him. i don't work for him anymore. they say it will drive up the costs of repairs. it's 60 bucks to do a t.s.a. background check. $60. now, don't you think it's worth $60 and that will drive

contract repair stations in the u.s. or overseas out of business if they confirm if their employees are criminals or terrorists? i don't think so. i urge support of the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. mica: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the intent of the gentleman who is the distinguished ranking member, former chair of the aviation subcommittee. . i think the crafting of this amendment is somewhat flawed in that he does now require f.a.a. to take their limited resources and f.a.a. is not a security agency, it's an aviation agency. and again, we have a jurisdictional question here. we can't put in provisions that

require t.s.a. to do certain things, but that is their response bill. i understand this is also already done where the repair station is at the airport. t.s.a. is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security, but it appropriately is in their realm, not f.a.a. and we get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies when really, this is not their responsibility. their charter under congress -- and again, i think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. with that, i have to oppose the amendment as crafted. i would be willing to work with him. there is a possibility of working with him and get it right. and again, i think his intention is good.

but again, the assignment is misplaced, and it would cause more problems the way it's crafted than benefits. so with that, reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. defazio: how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from florida has three minutes and the gentleman from oregon has two minutes. mr. defazio: with that, i yield one minute to mr. costello, the ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costello: i rise in support of this amendment. the amendment is clear, vim will and to the point and requires the f.a.a. a repair station, make sure that it carries out consistent screening of its employees. it's clear and to the point. the amendment complies with our obligations under international law and the amendment will move the f.a.a. forward in creating one level of safety, both for domestic and international

repair stations. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: again, i rise claiming the balance of my time in opposition to the amendment. i believe the gentleman's intention is good. the problem i have is with the crafting of the amendment. and heaven knows there is no one that is more critical than t.s.a. i helped create it back in 2001 along with mr. defazio. they have important responsibilities and one of them is aviation security and should be in repair stations. i'm concerned about beefing up some of that -- getting 3,700 bureaucrats that work and earn on average $105,000 just within miles of here, getting them relocated to where they can do

their security function at a place that does pose risks and that is at some of those foreign locations. this doesn't do the job but complicates the assignment we have for f.a.a. and t.s.a. is in a rule making process to address this responsibility, which is appropriately located within the purview and again jurisdiction of t.s.a. again, i oppose the amendment and will work with the gentleman. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i would yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate the chairman and i have worked together with him well and will continue to do that in the future, but we have to differ on this. the t.s.a. is not considering requiring criminal terrorist background checks as a requirement for overseas repair stations.

i think that is an unbelievable loophole that should shudders down the spine of anybody who flies planes that are being totally overhauled overseas. all this does, it doesn't require anybody from the f.a.a. to do anything. it just says if a repair station is to be certificate if i indicated by the f.a.a., the f.a.a. will have to perform background checks on its mechanics. any mechanic at an airport has to undergo these background checks. it costs 60 bucks. do you want a terrorist who is off the airport property to be working on an airplane, critical component or do you want a terrorist who is overseas working under very little supervision, none of it by the u.s., to have access to the most critical components of the plane. and the gentleman is an expert on aviation and he knows you can

take a critical component and these are problems that we have all the time, like a bolt, you can make one for three bucks that looks real and could break and a real bolt can cost $10,000. they did design parts to fail when a plane is overhauled overseas. let's not have the al qaeda full employment act. the chair: all time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. defazio: i would demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 10 printed in house report 112-46.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hirono: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-46 offered by ms. hirono of hawaii. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: thank you. i rise to speak in favor of this amendment. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. the basic idea of this amendment is to ensure the safety of the traveling public and those whose job it is to get them safely to their destinations and my amendment has to do with smoke in the cockpit. and i do note that the f.a.a. re-authorization bill that is under consideration today already acknowledges the concern about smoke in the cockpit,

because it requires the g.a.o. to study what the f.a.a. has done to address smoke in the cockpit. so my bill takes this concern to a more focused level by establishing an aviation rule making committee and are made up of representatives aviation, labor and other experts. their tasks would be to examine and provide regulatory recommendations on the issue of cockpit smoke. this committee will not cost the taxpayers any money and this amendment does not mandate rule making. the administrator of the f.a.a. would then review the recommendations and report to congress on the steps he or she will take to address them. and the problem of smoke in the cockpit is not new. in fact, my colleague from hawaii, introduced legislation to address this matter as long ago as 1993 and i want to note his remarks on the bill because 20 years later, we have not

adequately addressed this problem. and introducing this legislation in 1993, he said, quote, my colleagues will be troubled to learn that over the last 20 years, there have been a dozen zepts on commercial aircraft in which smoke in the cockpit may have been a factor and in these accidents, 850 people have died, end quote. that was in 1993, almost another 20 years has passed. more lives have been lost in accidents where cockpit was the cause or factor. while tragic accidents such as these are rare and there are already procedures in place to avoid them, fortunately, yes, incidents that end in death are rare. however, i believe that available evidence tells a different story about the number of times when cockpit -- smoke in the cockpit comes about. according to a more recent report, f.a.a.'s information

bulletin released in 2010, the f.a.a. noted that they received over 900 reports a year of smoke or fumes in the cabin or cockpit, an average of 900 incidents in 365 days does not seem to be a rare occurrence. our national response to this issue has been inadequate. we need a comprehensive up to date analysis of the issue and real action and next steps to protect our pilots and passengers. therefore, i believe my amendment is reasonable, logical and does not cost money and it takes us towards resolving this issue. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. with that, i retain the remainder of my time. the chair: what reason does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. petri: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i understand the intent behind the amendment. we have checked with the people

at the f.a.a. to develop expertise in this area and they advise us that current safety standards are sufficient to meet the risks posed by cockpit smoke and according to our contacts, the f.a.a. additionally believes that the existing performance-based standards for cockpit ventilation effectively eliminate the unsafe conditions associated with smoke on the flight deck. there are current regulations requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that continuously generated cockpit smoke can be evaluated within three minutes, evacuated within three minutes to levels such that the smoke does not distract the flight crew or interfere with flight operations. so on that basis, we oppose and urge the membership to join us

in opposing this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. petri: yes. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: the underlying f.a.a. re-authorization bill that we are contemplating today acknowledges this concern by asking the g.a.o. to assess what the f.a.a. has done in this area. so to me that says this is an ongoing concern that is acknowledged in the underlying bill. in addition, i would like to note there are any number of private airlines that already have these kinds of systems that i'm talking about in my amendment in their fleet. for example, jetblue has these systems, u.p.s. and on the federal side, i think it is interesting to know that the f.a.a.'s v.i.p. fleet has this kind of system in its cockpits to make sure their pilots can see when there is

continuous smoke in the cockpit. so, again, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment as being reasonable. and taking us to the next steps to address this issue. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman hawaii reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: current requirements of the tal f.a.a. require that smoke be evacuated from a flight deck within three minutes. and the feeling is that resources can best be utilized to focus on the risks that generates the smoke rather than the smoke itself and on getting the smoke out of the way rather than the approach that's being urged by this amendment. so i continue to recommend opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from hawaii.

ms. hirono: i would like to ask how much time i have left. the chair: you have one minute remaining. ms. hirono: i would like to close by reiterating, i think it's interesting that the f.a.a. focuses on the causes of cockpit smoke and frankly if there's smoke in the cockpit i don't know we need to be focusing on what causes the smoke. of course, that is important, but at the same time, what i care about on behalf of the pilots and the flying public is what can we do, what systems are already available, what technology is already available being used, i might say extensively by the private sector as well as in government airplanes that would ensure the safety of our pilots and flying public. and this is why i continue to press the adoption of my amendment. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman

yields back. jask wisconsin. mr. petri: -- the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: information provided to the committee by the f.a.a., no accidents or catastrophic events have been tied to the presence of smoke in the flight deck and analysis of accidents data for the last 15 years shows the equipment that would be required by this amendment would not have reduced fatal accidents and therefore, i urge that we listen to the experts, keep our focus in eliminating the cause and the smoke and not adopt the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. hirono: mr. speaker. on that i request the yeas and nays.

the chair: the gentlewoman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-46 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have intention to discuss this amendment. i ask unanimous consent before i discuss the amendment to withdraw the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be entertained

after your remarks. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. first off, let me indicate -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: my colleagues, the importance of this issue. i served as the chairperson of the transportation security committee on homeland security, and i now serve as the ranking member. so i lived through these issues of security for a very long time. from the tragic moments of 9/11 and the organization of our homeland security committee, select committee and then the final committee, i've been involved in these issues. so my intent is to discuss why this is an important safety issue and an important security issue. and, again, it is to recognize that our air traffic controllers are really our first responders. it is important to note that air traffic controllers are in rural airports and small airports and in our major airports. my amendment would specifically

speak to the busiest airports, those airports that could document on an annual basis the amount of passengers at that airport such as bush intercontinental airport in houston, texas, that has -- that is number eight. commercial aircraft, for example, always have at least two pilots for long hauls. sometimes there are three for long hauls. why will we not have the same standards for air traffic controllers? i believe it is important to ensure the safety of the american public. there are notorious incidents that involve pilot fatigue but there are also incidents that reflect upon the lack of air traffic controllers. i commend secretary lahood for ordering a secondary traffic controler to be on duty in particular overnight at the national airport. and i want to make the point that we are not demonizing air traffic controllers, because if you know the story, you know the individual that fell asleep had been on duty for three nights in a row. the secretary's action

evidences there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. there is legislation in the senate and there is language in the house bill that deals with the study. i frankly believe that we should have a more firm assessment, having a minimum of three, and at least two air traffic controllers to address this question. and why do i say that? the national air traffic controllers association and their president have indicated one person shifts are unsafe, period. the most horrifying proof of this, of course, came on august 27, 2006. in addition, it has been in the air traffic controlers commission to have at least one -- two people on staff or as air traffic controllers for most of their existence. so i stand today saying that it is important that we have trained air traffic controllers. they're called certified air traffic controllers. but in the top 20 airports i

must ask the question, why do we have a structure that doesn't require minimally three, at least two, and at least, if you will, will have the individual there at all times who has not been on duty for three nights in a row? i think this is an important step, and i would ask my colleagues to work with me as we go forward to ensure the safety and security of nation -- of the nation's skies. we are all working together, and i look forward perspectively to looking at legislation, long term, that addresses this issue of safety and security in the nation's air traffic control towers. they are our public servants, and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what reason does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. mica: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: again, i think the gentlelady's intentions are honorable and i know she's trying to make certain that we're safe and secure. however, the way the amendment is crafted with just requiring -- well, actually, requiring three air traffic controllers all the time in the top 20 as far as traffic first of all i'd say it doesn't achieve her goals. first of all, all of those, we have a list of them, have at least two air traffic controllers. now, some of them have very few flights. this doesn't answer the problem that they had at ronald reagan airport. there was a period of time -- there's a period of time when they have no traffic at many of these airports. what she'd be doing, the way this is crafted, is requiring at least three all the time when i have two already and --

require an additional one. these are not easy to come by, air traffic controllers. they earn on average $160,000. where i need to put them is where i have the air traffic. we always are required by labor organizations and by f.a.a. to staff to traffic. so her amendment, while maybe well intended, it actually achieves the opposite. all of these already -- everyone that she mentions has at least two. and then i'd be adding more people when they have no traffic as opposed to putting them where they need them where they have traffic. so i understand she's got to withdraw that, the amendment. i'd be glad to work with her. we do have provisions in here that will help us, i think, with some of the personnel movement and questions of professionalism and competency and training that will address some of the shortfalls we've seen from a limited number of

f.a.a. air traffic controllers. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i think i have the right to close, and as i indicated, mr. mica, i intend to withdraw. i wonder if you are yielding back. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: i will be grateful for her withdrawing that, help her resolve the problem and craft an appropriate provision and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chairman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman and also mr. costello on these issues. i think both members know my relationship to the issues of transportation security. i would argue that having a statutory framework to work from is the appropriate approach to take. you can assess then whether you need three or two or whether some of the airports already have the standing amount. but we have to focus on the security of our air -- our

skies, if you will, and we don't want any more tragedies to occur without some framework. i look forward to working with both gentlemen on a framework for our air traffic controllers. i intend to work on legislation that embodies safety and security in a jurisdictional manner and working with the department of homeland security and our jurisdictional committees. we owe it to the american public. and it is my commitment to ensure that professionalism is there, the safety and security is there and no more lives are lost because of the potential of an overly tired air traffic controler. with that, mr. chairman, i ask to -- i ask unanimous consent to allow me to withdraw this amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mrs. miller of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller. mrs. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly also want to thank chairman mica as well as chairman petri and also ranking member costello for all of their hard work and for putting out a bill i think that will help us move the nation forward and improve the quality of aviation in america. my amendment is designed to help expedite and to improve the process by which f.a.a. works with government agencies to incorporate unmanned aerial vehicles or u.a.v.'s, as they're commonly called, into the national airspace system. currently, mr. chairman, law enforcement agencies across the country from borders -- customs and border protection, from

local police departments, etc., are going to embrace the new technology and start embracing u.a.v.'s in the pursuit of enforcing the law and protecting our borders as well. however, the f.a.a. has been very hesitant to give authorization to these u.a.v.'s due to limited airspace and restrictions that they have. and i certainly can appreciate those concerns, but when we're talking about customs and border protection or the f.b.i., what have you, we are talking about missions of national security and certainly there's nothing more important than that. it was a very, very lengthy exercise to get the f.a.a. to authorize the use of u.a.v.'s on the southern border, and while they're finally being utilized down there, we are certainly a long ways to fully utilizing these technologies. my amendment does three things. first, it makes sure that those stakeholders use u.a.v.'s have a seat at the table during the integration process. second, my amendment would clear up a source of confusion in this process and direct the f.a.a. to find exactly what it means by sense and avoid

technology. we think this would help provide very clear cut criteria in order to assure compliance. and finally, my amendment directs the f.a.a. to conduct the safety studies that it is requiring. currently the f.a.a. would direct various agencies to conduct these studies themselves. however, there is no agency in the federal government that has the expertise and the competency that f.a.a. has when it comes to studying safety in the air. and so i think this would guarantee that the safety studies that the f.a.a. requires of this process are as comprehensive as possible. and as i said, we do have some domestic u.a.v. missions in the u.s. there is some in arizona, florida and texas, and we've made some progress. but when we have a situation in this nation where we don't have operational control of either of our borders, either on the southern border or northern border, i think that the taxpayers are well suited to be able to utilize current d.o.d.

technology, off-the-shelf hardware that has already been extremely effective in theater, to help us with our border protection. the u.a.v.'s are ready, they work. it's time we utilize them and we need to have the f.a.a. help us with this kind of a thing as well. thank you, mr. chairman. yes, i will certainly yield. mr. petri: i thank my colleague from michigan for yielding. we reviewed her amendment and have no objection to it. we think it's a step forward, and i would urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the amendment. mrs. miller: i certainly appreciate chairman petri's comments on that. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for debate has expired. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although i am not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, members, if h.r.

658 passes, this four-year f.a.a. re-authorization bill would devastate rural communities across our great country. this legislation completely phases out the essential air service program, rolls back critical funding needed for airport improvement programs, fails to adequately protect the rights of air passengers, and would cost us close to 70,000 american jobs. the e.s.a., the essential air service program, is necessary to provide air service into our country's most rural communities. mr. thompson: this year alone, 110 rural airports in the continental united states were helped by this important program. these airports, like one in particular that i represent in crescent city, california, would simply not be in operation if it weren't for the e.a.s. program. this legislation would completely phase out the e.a.s.

program for all airports in the lower 48 by 2014. this would be devastating for small businesses and a public safety disaster. now, i singled out crescent city airport in del norte county on the northwest coast of california because as we all know just a couple weeks ago we had a tsunami and crescent city was ground zero for that tsunami on the pacific coast. crescent city received about $40 million worth of damage. we lost a life. and all the roads were closed in and out of the area. the only way to get people in and out and some of those people critical public safety individuals, folks who came in to do assessments and to help out in this devastating time, were through our small airport. .

this this program is lost, this will not be able to for small airports. we have gone too long without an f.a.a. re-authorization bill. but the bill before us would do more harm than good for our aviation system. for that reason, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield to my friend and colleague, mr. costello. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costello: thank you. mr. chairman, we support the gentlelady's amendment and yield back the balance of our 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 gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in

house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 13 offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from georgia, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. mr. woodall: my amendment supports a long-standing f.a.a. medical flight services under part 135. there has been focus on fatigue and pilot rest and duties and i certainly understand that on the passenger side of the equation. but these medical charter flights fall into a different category. if you charter a flight to pick up a heart for a heart transplant, the life saving thing to do is keep that flight

coming back and not delay it with additional rest and regulations because of the unique circumstances that be there, ambulances and medical charter flights are in and we expanded it to include cargo. i didn't want there to be any confusion that if we had a heart on a plane that that was not somehow a medical ambulance flight because there was no person there. to prevent the f.a.a. from re-regulating in this area the same way they have regulated passenger flights. this is treated under a special part of the regulations because they provide a critical addition to our health care delivery system in this country and because the flights that they are involved in are genuinely a matter of life and death. with that, i ask my colleagues to support this protection of the current regulatory structure of these medical charter flights, prevent the

re-interpretation of that. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i would urge my colleagues' support. i hope this will be noncontroversial and i yield back. 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 georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico seek recognition? mr. pierluisi: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-46

offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. chairman. the central air service program enacted in 1978 ensures that smaller communities that were served by air carriers before deregulation continue to be served so that residents of these communities can access air travel. no where is the essential air service program more essential than in none con tying youous jurisdictions like puerto rico that are separate and distant from the u.s. mainland. the bill already passed by the other body, would make reforms to the e.a.s. program going forward but would continue the program in effect. the bill before us would phase out the e.a.s. program by october, 2013, but expressly

authorize the secretary of transportation if he or she deems it appropriate to continue the program beyond that date in the jurisdictions of alaska and hawaii. my amendment would provide the secretary with the same reasonable discretion in the case of puerto rico. the sound arguments that are in favor of allowing the secretary discretion with respect to alaska and hawaii apply with similar force with respect to puerto rico. like alaska and hawaii, puerto rico is in a jurisdiction separated by ocean from the u.s. mainland. puerto rico consists of multiple islands, three of which are home to active airports. the main island of puerto rico and the outer islands. as in alaska and hawaii, not all communities in puerto rico are connected by road and the nearly four million u.s. residents residing in the territory rely on aviation to connect to the national air transportation

network. federal support under the e.a.s. program has made this essential connection possible for many of my constituents who face unique geographic challenges. continuation of the e.a.s. program is likely to cost $1 million a year, roughlyly .06 cents. the e.a.s. program is funded through f.a.a. overflight files which apply to operators that fly in u.s. airspace including puerto rico. based on an earlier discussion we had on the floor, i know my friend, the gentleman from florida, is willing to work with me to address this matter as we move forward. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i ask unanimous

consent to control the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: first, i want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in representing so well the people of puerto rico. and the governor who preceded the current delegate and i talked to them about this situation and they have an essential air problem. he cited the two outer islands and i know even during a recent season, they had ferry boat interruption and no other way to get back and forth. this does constitute essential air service. as i have said with the gentlelady and the gentleman from north and south dakota and the gentleman from pennsylvania and now with the the gentleman from puerto rico, i commit to work with them and will try to address their concerns. and he has my commitment in that

regard. and i understand he's going to withdraw his amendment and i'm grateful for his cooperation and pledge to work with him. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from florida for his kind words and for the commitment he has made to ensure that puerto rico is not overlooked in the deliberations about essential air service program. i could not overstate the concerns of my constituents. therefore, i look forward to working with the gentleman from florida as well as the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction on this issue. and i ask you unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: first, i really do want to thank the chairman here for his hard work. this is a tough bill to put together. there are a lot of moving parts and i truly appreciate the diligence that you and your staff have done to ensure that this f.a.a. authorization continues to move forward. the current language in the bill does offer some relief to travel

restrictions imposed by the d.c.a. perimeter rule. it would make a handful of additional -- beyond perimeter opportunities available for those flying opportunities that would probably -- those flying opportunities would probably go to carriers with those with limited presence right now at reagan national. but there needs to be and really should be more done. my amendment would allow carriers which currently have slots at national airport to convert flights now servicing large hub airports inside the perimeter zone into flight serving any airport flying outside the perimeter zone. this approach would result in greater access for communities beyond the perimeter zone without adding any new flight and without jeopardizing service to small and medium-sized communities. there is support for the idea and there are many other ideas worth considering in this basic concept in dealing with this

perimeter zone. the perimeter rule restriction for flights coming in and out of reagan national really are outdated. it was a long time ago when the government thought it should control and manage and shall we say manipulate markets. whatever justification there might have been a long time ago, the perimeter rule has outlived its purpose. our constituents, particularly those in the western part of the country are penalized by continued imposition of this perimeter rule. broader relief of this rule, broader definition, broader expansion, competition -- this competition would benefit consumers and allow a better market to function for all of us. i would like this opportunity to work with the chairman to achieve the result of more competition. this is a very important bill. this is important to us in the west. and i do believe it should -- we should broaden the scope of the perimeter rule.

and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i yield myself one minute. mr. costello: mr. chairman, i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. the gentleman may or may not know that this is the one issue that held us up from getting an f.a.a. re-authorization bill in the last congress. in fact, we could not get the bill out of the senate because of this issue. it would, in fact, be an earmark for one airline. i support the language that is currently in the bill. it's taken years for us to negotiate where we are with this issue. and i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: may i yield time to the chairman of the transportation committee. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. mica: well, again, i do have concerns here. the concerns of mr. costello. this is a hard fought provision. i won't guarantee the gentleman that i'm aware of his concerns. i will work with him as the bill proceeds hopefully through the conference process. and i think you're doing an outstanding job in representing the constituencies who are affected who want those longer distance services to come into our nation's capital. and again, he has my strong commitment and i'm hoping he would withdraw the amendment at this time. and pledge to work with him. and i know mr. costello would also work with the gentleman in that regard. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i rise to support the chairman of the committee, mr. mica, and ranking member on this issue. as the ranking member pointed out, this was the single issue -- the amendment being offered by the gentleman from arizona, was identical to the dispute which submarined this bill in the last session of congress in the senate. essentially, it's a grab by principally one airline, but two airlines would get 70% of the benefit of his amendment. i think that's pretty much an earmark. it's pretty darn targeted. what we have proposed and what the chairman has proposed is much more modest and builds upon the consensus of the house last two sessions of this house and also the last two successful

re-authorizations of the f.a.a. that said, let's have real competition. so it would put up a small pool of slots to be competitively awarded to areas that are underserved, not to one airline so it can dictate who will get service and who won't, which is what the gentleman's amendment would do. this would be competition for airlines who do not have access to the airport. this is similar to what was done in air-21 and vision 100. it is an elegant solution to this and will not cause additional noise or problems at the airport, will not give one airline a near monopoly or two airlines of the market at national. give consumers more options in getting to our nation's capital and utilizing national airport.

i appreciate the gentleman's advocacy for an airline which serves his state but that airline doesn't serve mine nor many other western states and i would urge opposition and let's have a real competition. mr. swykert: my ultimate goal -- is why kert: my ultimate goal is -- mr. schweikert: my -- the chairman said he would like to work with all parties to reach a goal. so i withdraw the amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. ms. richardson: i have an amendment at the desk, number 22. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. ms. richardson: i -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report number 112-46, offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i have the amendment before the desk and i thank you for this opportunity to bring it forward. i want to point out that i brought forward this amendment

back in 2009 and it was passed in this house back on maye 21, 2009. my amendment directs the f.a.a. administrator to promulgate regulations within 180 days giving consumer an -- consumers an option, i want to stress, an option for a text message or email notification from carriers in the event of a delayed or canceled flight. it applies only to carriers who earn at least 1% of the domestic passenger service market my purpose today is not to tell the airlines how to run their business or to instill any burden on the airlines. but merely to ensure that hard working men and women who are spending their dollars flying the airlines are given the basic information that they deserve and what i would say is what they've already paid for. we can all tell horror stories of delayed and canceled flights. given the advances in technology and the widespread use of cell phones and smart

phones nationwide, it is only reasonable to consider we would utilize 21st century solutions for all of the american public, not just some who can pay a little bit more for it. my amendment will help to ensure that the traveling public will receive timely notification of any flight delay or cancellation. i need not tell you that the flight delays and cancellations continue to be a problem. in fact, the bureau of transportation reported that in 2010, more than one out of every five flights were delayed. major choke points for travelers have been taking place at large hubs but they can occur anywhere. it's not uncommon that airlines have prior knowledge of the upcome degree lay and that information should be shared appropriately with the public. the airlines can send each passenger who requested an email or text message which would give them more time to plan an alternative route or to notify their families. earlier this year, snow slammed the east coast and the midwest.

in the new york region alone, the storm caused thousands of canceled flights in the newark airport. customer service does matter and in this case it's something that all americans deserve. it is, when you consider it, in the economic interest of our country not to have thousands and thousands of unbeknownst to them people who are flying yet they're sleeping on the floor, running out of baby's milk and diapers and having a need to get to their point. let me suffice to say that in consultation with my colleagues on the other side, mr. mica and others, as well as with the industry, i've committed to working with them as we go forward to make sure that we can eventually get to a point where we can provide the public with the information but not in a way that's burdensome. so today, i will not ask for a recorded vote but i look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to establish a better process going forward which the industry has also agreed to work with me on.

with that, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: we do support the attempt of the -- intent of the gentlelady from california's amendment but it's in our opinion without further work and review of it not something that is wise to codify into law at this particular juncture. it's my understanding that all major air carriers do have notification of flights status and we want to make sure that the cope of less than major carriers and how it would work in practice so it doesn't result in litigation but not really greater consumer convenience. the industry's been moving since you called this to the

attention of the strbak several years ago, it's been implemented by all the major carriers and so progress is being made and we'd like to work with you to make further progress but we do oppose the amendment at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the yom from california has two minutes remaining. ms. richardson: i thank the gentleman on the other side for his willingness to work with me, as i just spoke to the industry individuals not all of them have implemented, so there is room to grow and there's also -- it's not necessarily all passengers are aware of the service and having access to it. but suffice to say, i agree with your thoughts that certainly we're not looking to do anything burdensome, we're certainly not looking for legal issues, but if we can figure out a way to work to get the best thing for the american public, that's my objective. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i understand the delegate from the district of columbia would like to address the issue and i yield two minutes to our colleague. ms. norton: i appreciate my friend for yielding me two minutes. i did not get an opportunity to speak on the last amendment and i did want to, although i'm from the rei want to reinforce why the compromise session by the chairman and the ranking member is so important. there are some from the other body that want to expand the perimeter. dulles and reagan are essentially airports under congressional control and congress has mandated a balance between reagan and national and has allocated finances accordingly. reagan is a short-term, national is the long-term, reagan has one primary runway.

there was a story in the paper recently about how hard it is, therefore, for planes to land there dulles has four times as many. underuse of dulles would in fact waste substantial investment that the congress has put into this balance. the compromise language does at least import competition whereas the original amendment would have been a wind fall to one or two airlines. i very much appreciate this compromise, those of us in the region would prefer nothing outside of the perimeter but we're always willing to work with the chairman and with others on the committee and i am grateful for the compromise -- that has been accepted and i'm very grateful to the gentleman from arizona has been kind enough to withdraw. i yield back the balance of my

time with gratitude. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: mr. chairman, the flying public should have the peace of mind of knowing that if they so choose, they are armed with the latest information regarding their flight delays. this is what our american public has right now. as this bill continues, i pledge to continue to work with mr. petri, mr. mica, and all rank -- and our ranking member, mr. costello as we continue to work to make sure the airlines come up with a solution that will benefit all the flying public here in america a solution that does not burden the consumers or the industry, that can allow us to get to our objective, which is for people to fly safely and be appropriately informed. i urge my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr capuano: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in house report 112-46, offered mr. wap waugh -- capuano of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr capuano: this amendment does two simple things, we worked with the department of transportation to make sure we didn't step on any toes. it requires any airline charging a baggage fee to tell us what it is so when you want to go online and get a $100 ticket, you know it's going to cost you $120 for the baggage or whatever. it requires them to share that information with any othering a

gator that they already have a contract with. it does not require them to share that information with people that they do not do contract work with. the second thing it does is it simply -- simply says if you collect a baggage fee and you lose that bag, that you have to refund the baggage fee. very simple. two items, consumer protection, everybody who travels, everybody who flies knows that these two issues have become problems. they're being unaddressed. d.o.t. is looking at some regulation they haven't done it yet, there's nothing in this bill that would interfere with that activity and therefore, mr. speaker, i would respectfully request that this amendment be adopted. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. ply mie ka: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: i favor the disclosure of fees by airlines, i think that fees ought to be

refounded when bags arrive late, or damaged, however, as drafted the amendment goes far beyond that and allows again some unfairness to contractual agreements. first of all with global distribution systems and ticket agents, this requirement tips the scales in favor of global distribution systems and their business relationships with airlines and global distribution systems are not charitable organizations. they're owned by private equity firms, hedge funds, they exist to make money in the travel industry and it would tip the balance in this requirement for them. i favor part of what the gentleman is trying to do but as crafted, i have to oppose the amendment because of that provision. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr capuano: i respect the gentleman's opinion but i

respectfully disagree. there is nothing in the proposal that would require anyone to disclose any information to anyone they are not already giving information to. if an airline is already doing work with orbitz or expedia or kayak, they're already giving them all the information, all this says is that when you go to a website that they are already working with, some of them don't work with any at all, it simply says if you work with them, you have to add in the baggage fee. it's allowing people to make informed decisions as to how much they want to pay to actually travel with their own bags. not a difficult thing. mr. chairman, i respectfully reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from florida has yielded back. mr capuano: then i yield the plans -- i yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes. .

mr. costello: last july, mr. petri and i held a hearing and had the g.a.o. come in and not only g.a.o. and consumer groups and the message was clear that had consumers' interests in mind. these fees are excessive and information about baggage fees should be transparent and immediately disclosed so consumers can compare the total costs of flights offered by the different carriers. this legislation helps bring more equity and transparency to the process. i urge my colleagues to support it. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: unanimous consent, we would like to put a letter of support, the largest flying public representative. the chair: gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

massachusetts. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. capuano: i request a roll call vote. the chair: recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in house report number 1126-46 offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i rise to offer an amendment with my good friend that will increase efficiency in the f.a.a. and uphold the integrity of taxpayer dollars. in 2008, the office of personnel management conducted a survey of

61 federal agencies and found that nearly three million work hours and over 120 million taxpayer dollars were spent on union activity on official work-related time. this amendment prohibits federal employees from using official taxpayer-sponsored time on these activities. by offering this amendment, i intend to limit federal activity during normal business hours to the people's work and not for bargaining with one's employer, arbitrating grievances or carrying out internal labor activities. labor organizations must participate in these actions outside of official time and without use of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. mr. chairman, the current collective bargaining agreement between the f.a.a. and air traffic controllers allows for nine federal employees to spend their, get this, their entire work year on behalf of the union. let me be abundantly clear, nine

federal employees are paid by taxpayers for absolutely no official work on their behalf. so this amendment in no way inhibits an employee's right to participate in collective bargaining or arbitration even though union representatives generally drag these activities out for months to years costing taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. opponents of this amendment will say that union representatives cannot use any official time for political activity and only for work-related purposes. however, mr. chairman, during the c.r. debate on h.r. 1 two weeks ago, a federal employee working for the f.a.a. sent members an email at 2:47 in the afternoon with a letter that opposed an amendment stating that official time cannot be used for any political activities. i find it hard to believe how this letter does not constitute

a political activity for which this federal employee clearly evaded official work responsibility in the middle of the work day in order to weigh in on a political matter on behalf of his union. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include this correspondence in the record and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: gentleman's rerequest will be covered in general leave. gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it unfairly singles out the f.a.a. unionized employees from all other federal employees. the union has a right to receive official time to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement and participate in proceedings. in addition, the law permits an agency and union to negotiate the availability of official time as long as the time is reasonable, necessary and in the

public interest. mr. chairman, additionally, the purpose of the official time is to give federal employees the opportunity to represent their colleagues on issues rang arranging from discrimination and resolve dispute at the lowest level rather than resorting to costly litigation. the cost of arbitrating one case estimated to be at least $10,000 and that does not include the salaries and expenses for the time spent by the two attorneys the f.a.a. uses on every case. mr. chairman, i would respectfully submit this is an issue that should be left to be negotiated between the agency and the employees and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i yield 10 seconds to the committee chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. mica: i ask unanimous consent that the letters -- this letter of support for the bill be submitted for the record.

the chair: gentleman's request will be covered in general leave. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i yield the balance of my time to the the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. rokita: i thank dr. gingrey for yielding me the time. the highest honor and privilege of my professional career so far has with all due respect not been in this chamber, but the eight years i served as indiana's secretary of state. i have run a government agency. we have run it on 1987 dollars, unadjusted for inflation. secretary of state's office in indiana spends no more money than it did in 1987, again, unadjusted for inflation. we have no more employees than we did in 1982. from that experience, i can say the worst thing you can do for government efficiency, if you

are interested in serving the people is to have your employees distracted by anything else but the people's business. the scope of this problem at the federal level, i find absolutely stunning. according to the office of policy management in 2008, federal workers were paid 2.9 million hours. we paid as american taxpayers for 2.9 million hours of union negotiations. that means we spent $120 million for people to negotiate for a different or better job, not for them to even do their actual job. certain union representatives at the f.a.a. are allowed to spend 80 hours each pay period doing union business, not the work of the people of this nation. last time i checked that, that's two weeks' worth of work. they are being paid by the taxpayers and only working on union business.

how does that fair to the american taxpayers, mr. chairman, that are footing this bill? this must stop. in case the members haven't heard, this country is broke. we are borrowing money at a record pace and assigning the bill to our children and grandchildren and we cannot to waste taxpayer dollars that benefits only a chosen few. please support this amendment. put money back into the pockets of american families and let union negotiators work on their own time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i yield back. 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 georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on

the motion will be postponed. proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-46 in the following order. amendment number one by mr. mica

>> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the motion is that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the committee rises.

>> mr. chairman. -- the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 658 and has come to no resolution thereon. with no -- for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 195, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1255, to prevent a shutdown of the government of the united

states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement. mrs. capito: i ask that the -- ellmers of north carolina be removed as co-sponsor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of making an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order.

>> the committee on rules is scheduled to meet the week of april 4 -- mr. woodall: to grant a rule that could limit the process on the energy tax prevention. any member wishing to submit an amendment must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and they must submit 30 hard copies of the amendment and an amendment log-in form to the rule committees in room h. 312 of the capitol by 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, april 5, 2011. both electronic and hard copies must be received by that date and time. members should draft their amendments to the text of the bills as ordered reported by the committee on energy and commerce which are available on the rules committee website.

members should use the office of legislative counsel to ensure their amendments are draft in the most -- in the best format and be certain their rules comply with the rules of the house and the congressional budget act. if you have any questions, i'd encourage members to contact me or members of the rules committee staff. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 189 an rule 18, the chair declares the house in committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 658. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly resume the chair? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of

the union for the further consideration of h.r. 658 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: 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 approve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today amendment number 18 printed in house report 112-46 offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, had been disposed of. the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek

recognition? mr. graves: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. graves of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd first like to start out by saying i appreciate the rules committee making this amendment in order and while i'm going to withdraw the amendment i think it's very important to talk about this because it's a very important aspect of the -- the chair: the committee will be in order. please remove your coverings from the floor. -- conversations from the floor. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as i was saying, this amendment is very important aspect of the interstate commerce act. in 1994, just to give you a

little bit of background, in 1994 when we were doing the f.a.a. re-authorization bill, congress recognized the importance of airports in interstate commerce in active legislation prevents state and local governments from proposing discriminatory taxes on airport users to fund other projects. however, for nearly 20 years, state and local governments have taken advantage of a loophole by applying the burden of the tax not only to airport users but all similar entities within that taxing jurisdiction. this is this has allowed state and local governments to circumvent the intent of congress and levee discriminatory taxes against interstate travelers, in particular rental car customers. the intent of the 1994 law is very clear, targeted taxes imposed at airports are to be used at airports for airport-related projects and we must continue to allow state and local governments from circumventing these restrictions. right now, mr. chairman, i would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cullen.

mr. culberson: thank you, mr. graves, i appreciate your yielding time. i appreciate you bringing this amendment and i rise in strong support of the concept and the amendment although i know it's going to be withdrawn. mr. cohen: the concept is important and we need to address interest this issue in this congress. this amendment would address the growing crisis of discriminatory taxes placed on rental car transactions. i don't need to tell my colleagues how frustrating it is to go and rent a car and see huge taxes on your bill. taxes put on your bill by legislative bodies that you don't get a right to vote on most of the time and that you don't get to vote on. and it's a simple thing for people to do. it's cheap taxes. for state and local officials to let tourists pay their taxes for their sports arenas and their other facilities. don't tax me, don't tax, tax that guy behind that tree. that's not the kind of tax philosophy we should encourage and we should make our state and local officials do taxation in the proper manner in which it's supposed to be with either property taxes or sales taxes or

income taxes but not these types of taxes that discriminate. my jurisdictions have done it as well but it doesn't make it right. rental car taxes target air travelers but they also hurt low income people that don't own cars and must rent instead. the 1994 f.a.a. re-authorization bill included the provision to prevent taxes targeting air travelers to pay for projects that have nothing to do with air traffic. but state and local governments exploited a loophole and raised billions of dollars through these taxes. more than 117 discriminatory rental car excise taxes have been enacted in 43 states in the district of column -- and the district of columbia. i was in the tennessee ledgeure for 24 years and we did our share. i tried to oppose some of them. wrotsing an -- it's wrong and where he need to act. i urge support for the amendment when it comes back up. i thank congressman graves for his work on the issue and look forward to working with him in the future to see this become law in our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time?

mr. graves: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: i do rise in opposition to the amendment and the gentleman, both the gentleman from tennessee, distinguished gentleman from missouri, have raised some excellent points about excessive fees, some of them unsuspecting renters are forced to pay sometimes and when you rent a car, sometimes the fees look like more than the car rental. but many of the communities and airports are committed to building facilities, they make those decisions through elected local state bodies and we have to recognize some of their independence. i appreciate the goal of the gentleman and this amendment. i believe he's going to withdraw it, but i do pledge to work with him to see how we can put some limitations in the future that

are reasonable and not impair the proper development and also taking the burden off taxpayers for improvement that someone who comes in and rents a car experiences and at footing some of the bill for the convenience that are accorded some of these visitors and car renters. we need to seek a proper balance and pledge to work with the gentleman in that regard -- work with the gentleman in that regard. with mr. graves and mr. cohen. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri has two minutes remaining. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. in closing i want to thank the rules committee for making this amendment in order and i very much want to thank the chairman for his willingness to work with us on this issue. in the future. and i look forward to that and with that, mr. chairman, i will withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would prevent any funding within the f.a.a. re-authorization and reform act of 2011 to be used to administer or enforce the davis-bacon wage rate requirements with respect to any project or program in the underlying text or amendment adopted today. since the davis-bacon act was signed into law in 1931 labor rates for government contracts have been inflated significantly. affecting the cost of administrative expenditure for those awarded projects. unfortunately the davis-bacon

requirement has inadvertently caused the government to pass higher costs on to the american taxpayers, often costing 5% to 38% more than the project would have cost in the private sector according to the associated building contractors. the congressional budget office has stated that the davis-bacon act has cost our government more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. i say enough is enough. we must re-evaluate and look at what we're doing that costs more money for the government and ultimately the taxpayers. we must stop passing this financial burden on the backs of hardworking american taxpayers. this year alone the heritage foundation has estimated that the davis-bacon act will add more than $10.9 billion to our

already burdensome national debt. the american people sent a strong message to congress in the last election and that it was time to plane out-of-control government spending -- rein in out-of-control government spending. we can vote yes on this commonsense amendment today. in 2009 the public policy foundation of west virginia released a study stating that as many as 1,500 construction jobs could have been created if these wage regulations were repealed or reformed to reflect actual market-based wages. during our current economic times, as tough as they are, that this nation's facing, we need to make sure that it is easier for the private sector to create jobs for the unemployed, not to hinder job growth. davis-bacon requirements undercut and undermine the hard work of small business owners

because the time-consuming and costly requirements of davis-bacon. businesses have constantly expressed frustration over the difficulty of complying with wage rules of davis-bacon. as a result large and often unionized companies have been awarded more government contracts that come at a higher price to taxpayers. i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment that ensures small and large businesses have the ability to compete for all government contracts while saving the american taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. mr. chairman, this is exactly what the american people want and need, a better deal in the marketplace. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rahall: thank you. mr. chairman, here we go again. the majority's continuing what started out in some of the states this this year and has been going on with more vemsy in

this body. they're continued attacks on collective bargaining rights of workers, they're continuing to blame the workers of this country for the economic ills. i think it's worth noting that the gentleman from texas just noted a trouble that people have had complying with davis-bacon over the years. it's been around since 1931 when two republicans by the name of davis and bacon instituted the davis-bacon law. and study after study has shown that despite the opponents' claims that davis-bacon is an act that -- act has had little or no affect on the toecal cost of federally assisted projects. there's a study that shows that the highways and states attract more productive, effective, highly skilled and safe workers, making the cost per mile of highway construction actually cheaper in highway states than in low -- high-wage stateness that in low-wage states. it's important to note as well that here we are in an economic

recovery and these republican continued attacks on our workers of this country at a time when we're slowly, however slowly pulling out of a recession and entering a recovery does not make any sense at all. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this continued attack on the workers' rights of this country and i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. costello. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i thank the ranking member. i rise in strong opposition to my friend's amendment from texas. as mr. rahall just stated, for nearly 80 years the davis-bacon act guaranteed fairness in wages and conditions for americans who served the public good and performed public works for the federal government. at a time when so many americans are out of work and under financial stress this amendment would strip away workers' rights to just compensation for their labor that directly benefits all of us by keeping aviation infrastructure across the nation working safely. further, the amendment would

likely make it difficult for f.a.a. contractors to find skilled workers who have the expertise necessary to perform work on complicated safety-critical facilities and equipment. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the gentleman's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time -- or reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, the gentleman from, mr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is just absolutely astonishing to me that my colleagues on the other side of this issue could stand up on the floor of this house and talk about jobs when davis-bacon wages that they want to perpetuate, even though they've existed these many years, takes away so many jobs. i don't know the exact statistics but, mr. chairman, when you look at a job situation without davis-bacon rules,

you're able to probably employ 1 1/2 to two times as many people with good-paying, decent-paying jobs and jobs that pay them for their skill level and what they're doing on the workplace and not being forced to pay these much higher wages despite the job that it happens to be involved in. and i think we ought to be paying for whatever the skill labor is, for that particular job, and if we didn't have these rules and regulations like davis-bacon, there would be a heck of a lot more jobs in this country and we can't afford to leave 16 million people on the sidewalk. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time.

mr. sessions: i urge the gentleman -- the gentleman will close. the gentleman from georgia is correct. on average, this davis--- davis-bacon wage requirement requires 22% above market wages. that means it costs 22% or more on costs for getting projects done, which means fewer projects can get done, which hampers the ability that we have, local governments have, to ensure that contractors and work is done across this country this amendment saves taxpayers millions of dollars. we heard perhaps a billion. it allows for more competition. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: at this time, i yield the blaps of my time to the ranking member of the full committee, mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. rahall: i guess this is part of the mantra of the

majority on this particular bill, do more with less, when actually what we're doing is less with less. there would be less wages paid to our american work fers this amendment were to be adopted an there would be less safety provided to the american workers, there would be less health care coverage provided, less pension care coverage, less efficient, less highly skilled workers if this gentleman's amendment were adopted. so i conclude by urging all our colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of miz time. all time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the noes have it. >> i ask for -- mr. sessions: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote in mr. sessions: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 21 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. la due rhett: i have an emmitt made in order. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21, offered by mr. latourette of ohio. the chair: the gentleman mr. ohio. mr. latourette: ski unanimous consent that two minute moifs five minutes be yielded to and kohled by the ranking member of the subcommittee mr. costello to yield time as he sees fit. the chair: without objection. mr. latourette: let me just make this observation. 17th extension, i believe, of the f.a.a. bill, we haven't had an f.a.a. bill until 2003. this is going to take it to two more years because the president said he won't sign this bill unless this amendment is adopted, the senate declared

this a nonstarter. if we want to hear fancy speeches, and for those tuning in around the country, this will be our fourth or fifth anti-union vote that has nothing to do with the aviation system. even on the last amendment, you can't say it costs jobs and increases costs. if you hire the same amount of workers for davis-bacon and hire two times as many workers, it's going to cost the same. it's that kind of circumstance la argument that's leading the circular firing squad. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i agree with points made by my friend from ohio. the national mediation board made the right decision at the request of members of congress, both democrats and republicans. in the words of congresswoman candice miller, this is not a pro-union or anti--union vote, this is about fairness. i urge a yes vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from florida. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: unfortunately, i have to strongly disagree with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from ohio, and the gentleman from illinois, on this amendment. what's proposed as fairness is really probably the height of unfairness. we've had 75 years of rule and law in which, to organize in the transportation sector, you had to have a majority of all of the individuals that work there, all the people that would be potential members, and a majority of those folks would have to vote in the union and i have no problem with union

representation. the president packed the board of -- the national mediation board to one vote, they changed 75 years of ruling. now it's particularly unfair and the dirty little secret in all this is that they didn't change to it desert fi, to shed the union they left it so you still have to have all -- a majority plus one of all the members, this is not fair by any means. we should allow unionization, we should allow votes of it, but those, again, who are affected, who have to pay the dues, who have to abide by union rules and regulations that they set, it's not fair. i wish this was crafted in a different way for fairness but it's not. so again they upset 75 years in which it worked very well.

in fact they told me today that under the 75 years, we had a larger number than most recent votes under this rule. i think it's 50% to 70%, something like that. so if you really want to favor unionization in a fair way, let's have it the way it worked for many years and oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: this is a good example of what's going on here. the last amendment was going to repeal davis-bacon which has been around for 80 years, 80 years is ok, 70 years isn't. this doesn't make sense. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. costello: i yield to mr. rahall. mr. rahall: it's clear the other body would not accept this amendment if the bill goes

with this in it, the president of the united states would not accept this amendment, this bill with the current language, he's already said veto it so i guess the proponents of this particular provision are wanting to continue to pass extension after extension, threatening airport improvement, threatening to halt airport construction and threatening to shut down our goth. this is not about unions, it's about fairness and what's right for the american worker. that's all we're talking about in this particular amendment. i would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. miller: i rise in strong support of this amendment. this amendment really restores democracy to the american workplace and it restores the american principles of majority vote and majority rule. the decision by the national mediation board to begin recognizing election results based upon who actually votes in the election is correct and

a long time coming. it's a fair and open process, 60-day comment period and public hearings with 34 witnesses and this -- their answers were upheld in court. think of this in our committee. all rules are a majority of those present and voting. no committee in this congress would operate under these rules because they would not be able to prevail on any of the votes because people would just -- people could stay away and be counted no. no p.t.a. would operate urn these rules. they may have a large membership. so we have to restore democracy, protect american workers and support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman for yielding to me, the language in the bill gets it contactly right and i rise in strong opposition to this amendment for the national mediation board, three

political appointees in a 2-1 decision a year ago undid 75 years of law, railway labor act, that simply says that to certify unions, 50% plus one of the group has to vote in favor of it. as the chairman said, the desertification part is a much higher bar. so it has to be a majority plus one to desert fi that is totally wrong. the bill has it right. vote against this striking amendment and vote for fairness and for the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio has one and three quarter minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has one and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from illinois' time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: we have one and a half minutes? the chair: the gentleman has one and a half minutes remaining.

mr. mica: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. petri: i thank my colleague for yielding. i'm sitting here thinking, listening to this debate and people talking about fairness and 75 years. i did a little math. 75 years ago, the railway labor act was enacted by a very heavily democratic congress and the franklin d. roosevelt administration. and now we're told that they were unfair and unkind and so on to organized labor. this is something passed by the congress, the national labor relations act has always until now for 75 years been interpreted to mean that a majority of vose affected had to vote to certify a union. i think if we want to change it if our sense of what's fair has changed over the last 75 years, and it has in other areas, it should be done by act of

congress not by the national labor relations board -- the national mediation board in this fashion. it clearly upsets the balance that was struck and served us well for several generations. the chair: the gentleman from ohio has one and three quarter minutes. the gentleman from florida has one and a half minute -- as one half minute remaining. the gentleman from ohio. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one and three quarter minutes. mr. latourette: when people read this record they need to know what this amendment is about and what we're talking about. we're talking about the rule that the mica bill repeals is that if you have 100 people that work for a company and you have an election an 70 of them show up and 65 of them vote to certify a union, the union loses because you don't get 50

plus the universe. in our example, members of congress, where voter turnout is about 49% in the last election, i got 200,000 registered voters in my district, 100,000 show up irk get 70,000. champagne, great, honey, we won another one, we fooled them again. i would lose. 130,000 to 70,000 because the rule that's been in place since 1935, and i'm saddened that folks have to have an even number to be bad law, the good law is something that's only 75 years, that's just nuts. that is crazy. and you know, 75 years, i'm going to steal from my friend, mr. costello, when the constitution was framed, who could vote? white guys who owned land. and they said, man, i can't believe they changed that. it's unbelieveable. another 100 years, women couldn't vote. if you ask some guys today they'd say, the country got

screwed up when they let women vote. that's a non sequitur. when the old majority was on their way out, we know they didn't do anything. when they were on their way out, we needed to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open. 75 of our members went home for christmas. so that c.r. passed 193-165. if the mica rule is kept in place, the government would have shut down and we hough lost -- would have lost that vote 193-240. please pass the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida has 30 seconds remaining. mr. mica: in closing, the president has threatened to veto this legislation because of the provision that we have. i can see why because he packed the board. he packed the board and on a 2-1 vote they overroad a provision put in by f.d.r., confirmed by truman, carter and others and then we heard this is an assault on democracy.

folks have you ever seen a one-way democracy, the vote going in sticks and the vote going out is left the same? so please vote. this is not the case. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired all time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a vorded -- recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. it is now time to consider amendment number 22 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at

the desk. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in house report 112-46. offered by mr. graves of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is an amendment that deals with a temporary flight restriction that complicates things at the air show in cleveland. there's actually several air shows that this is a problem with, but the cleveland air show happens to be the worst one. the reason i am doing it is because i do a lot of air shows and fly in a lot of air shows and i'm familiar with how the -- it works. right now, and what the problem we've had in the past is when the cleveland indians play at jacobs field, if they have a stadium flight restriction, for any stadium with a game going on, whether it's football, baseball, whatever, that t.f.r. is 3 1/2 miles in radius and

3,000 feet deep. well, with the airport so close to the stadium, if there's a rain game or a rain delay game that is postponed and rescheduled and you have the air show at cleveland which is one of the most historic air shows around the country, it completely eliminates that air show. the irony is that the stadium there, the cleveland indian stadium, only seats 43,000 people and there's 90,000 people at the air show. so it creates a problem. what i'm trying to do is clarify and allow the air show to go on when there's a game going on. now here's the irony. this is the most important part, there is what we call an air show t.f.r., temporary flight restriction, it's more restrictive than a stadium t.f.r. is. in fact, an air show flight restriction is five miles in radius and it's 12,000 feet deep. it completely encompasses, completely encompasses the stadium t.f.r. so if there's a game going on at the same time as an air show, they're still going to be completely protected and it's

going to be completely encompassed within that t.f.r. and they can both proceed. if for some reason the air show ends early and the game is still going on, then it will immediately revert back to the stadium t.f.r. and everybody is happy and we move forward. there is never a single point in time when there is no protection over that stadium. and it's always been a problem, we're just trying to clarify so they can continue. the people of cleveland can continue to do the air show. i would yield. mr. petri: we've reviewed the amendment on this side, it's a well-reasoned exception to the rule and therefore i would support the amendment and urge a yes vote. gave gave -- mr. graves: mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. graves: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining who seeks time in opposition? mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i'm --

i don't know whether i'm in opposition or not but i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the clerk: is -- the chair: is there objection? hearing none, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rahall: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: i want to thank mr. rahall -- the chair: how much time does the gentleman yield? mr. rahall: two minutes. mr. kucinich: i want to thank you very much. as congressman from the cleveland area, i want to thank mr. graves for pointing out the importance of making this change so that we can continue to have the air show at the same time that we have these mainly sports events going on. what most people may not understand, in cleveland we have a lakefront airport that's a relatively short distance from our football stadium and it's also not that far away from our baseball stadium. so it's important for this great event which is the air show to

be able to get the cooperation from all federal authorities so we can proceed with it. this is one of the major events of the end of summer in cleveland. and we're very proud of the air show. it's a cleveland tradition that goes back many, many years. and i would hope to have the support of members of both sides of the aisle and i want to thank my good friend for helping to take the initiative on this because i think this is something that openfully we'll all be able to agree on. i yield back to the gentleman from west virginia. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. the gentleman from missouri has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. graves: i'll close. reserve, i don't have anybody else. i can close. mr. chairman, this is again -- and i'm going to say this for the sake of -- i know there's a lot of confusion out there and i hope there's staff listening and there are members listening in

their offices. again, this is -- the cleveland air show, as was pointed out by the gentleman from ohio, is -- i fly a lot of air shows. this is one of my favorite air shows. it's an aviation community. again, this never at any time lessens security one bit. in fact, it makes security stronger because the t.f.r. around an air show is even tighter than a normal t.f.r. it's bigger, it's deeper and you can't even turn a prop without getting permission during an air show while it's going on. so there will never, ever be a time that this stadium is not underneath a t.f.r. i'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. it's a problem and we need to fix it so there's no reason why two events can't go on at the same time if that ever is a problem and it has been in the past. we just don't want it to be in the future. mr. rahall: would the gentleman yield for a question? i'm wondering if the gentleman has consulted with t.s.a. or department of homeland security or f.b.i., the various agencies

that we're concerned about safety at such sport event it's following 9/11 and for which many of the stadiums and sponsors of these forces have instituted and spent millions of dollars in safety, who have legitimate concerns that one attack may make it all for astronaut. grave grave we did not contact the f.b.i. but we did -- mr. graves: we did not contact the f.b.i. but we did contact homeland security. they did not get a response back to us. i provided to the ranking member the aviation subcommittee the response from the f.a.a. they took no position. and we still leave that authority with them. they can still, if they think it needs to be more restrictive, they can do that. so i didn't want to take that completely away. i think the biggest problem is i think the sports authorities didn't realize there are t.f.r.'s associated with an air show and -- which are actually more restrictive and bigger. the best think thing could you do have an air show next to your

game. you'll have a bigger t.f.r., the yirne is. mr. rahall: the gentleman's aware of the letter we've received from the organizations, major league baseball and football league, the ncaaa, expressing their opposition to your amendment. mr. graves: yes, i think it's because they don't realize there's still a t.f.r. there and i should have done a better job of explaining that. and if it becomes a problem, i want there to be good security. i'd be more than willing to work something out. the chair: the gentleman from missouri's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: thank you, mr. chairman. i think i heard what i was looking for in the gentleman's concluding comments there that he is willing to work with anybody that has these legitimate safety concerns. in order to make sure that everything is clear on this going forward. mr. mica: i would be pleased to work with both the gentlemen to make sure that we cover all the safety concerns. thank you. mr. rahall: thank you. 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 missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in house report 11-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the santa monica airport is a unique general aviation facility locate in my congressional district. each end of the bidirectal runway is abut thed by steep hills, public streets and densely populated neighborhooded with homes as close as 250 feet. the airport has no runway safety

areas. if a plane overshot the runway or failed to lift off upon departure it could easily land in the neighborhood. the amendment i offered today is simple and straightforward. it urges the f.a.a. to continue its discussion with the city of santa monica to identify a meaningful solution to address serious safety concerns at the santa monica airport. for nearly a decade, i joined the community, the city of santa monica, and the airport administration, to push the f.a.a. to address this serious safety gap. while the f.a.a. has had discussions with the city and presented a runway safety proposal, its response has simply fallen short. the f.a.a. has acknowledged that its proposal is both insufficient to stop larger jets from an overrun and inadequate to prevent overshoots involving smaller planes.

my constituents and the pilots and passengers who use santa monica airport deserve better. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. waxman: i'd be pleased to yield. >> mr. chairman, first i have no objection to the amendment. mr. mica: the sense of congress, the gentleman from california offers that f.a.a. should enter into discussions with the santa monica airport for the purpose of runway safety are justified. this is a safety issue, it's important that we address it and from our side i would support it. mr. waxman: i thank the chairman. i'm pleased to yield to the ranking -- ranking member of the committee. mr. rahall: i thank the gentleman from california for bringing this to our attention and bringing this amendment to our floor and has our total support as well. mr. waxman: thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any member claim time in opposition? hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 112-46. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 112-46 offered by mr. shuster of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment and this amendment is composed two of parts. both of which deal with making improvements to the process of issuing federal aviation administration regulations. the amendment is an effort to improve rule making at the f.a.a. by requiring the agency to meet fundamental rule making principles. directing the f.a.a. to meet these standards will ensure that regulations protect the critical importance of aviation safety while also considering issues of economic competitiveness. the first part is one size does

not fit all part of the amendment, requires the f.a.a. to recognize that the united states aviation industry is composed of a variety of different segments with different operating characters. therefore been -- characteristics. therefore the f.a.a. administrator must analyze the different industry segments and taylor any -- tailor any regulations to the characteristics of separate segments. the definition of industry segments is left to the administrator. the f.a.a. administrator, randy baseball ot, has pointed out that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. in 2009 administrator said in rule making not only does it not one size fits all but it's unsafe to think it can. this amendment attempts to fulfill that objective. the second part of both president obama's goals of regulatory reform. the second part ensures that the proposed regulations are not overly burdensome or cumbersome by requiring the f.a.a. to conduct rule making in accordingance with certain principleless. first the reason, cost and

benefit analysis, second, an assessment of the impact on the economy and extremely important that the regulation is based on the best available science and technical information. let me be clear that my intent is not to single out or gut any particular regulation or proposed regulation. this amendment does not define industry segments, we allow the f.a.a. administrator to interrupt and define what -- interpret and define what industry segments are. it does not require that the cost benefits analysis be the reason for a rule -- a reasoned analysis. additionally, the amendment is not retroactive. and finally i understand there may be concerns that the language could apply to ongoing rule making. that's not my intent. the transportation committee has worked hard to address the important safety concerns in a bipartisan manner and if there are concerns with the language we certainly want to make sure we clear that up. witat