tv U.S House of Representatives CSPAN April 26, 2018 1:59pm-4:00pm EDT
1:59 pm
maintain their runway and other critical infrastructure so that the resources are available when disaster strikes. this matters to folks in my neck of the woods who live in the shadow of the zone. when the big one hits, the fairchild airport will be essential to deploying emergency supplies, as well as for evacuating people to safety. i'd like to thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for their support of this amendment and i urge my colleagues voluntary to vote yes on it. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i encourage all of my colleagues to support the en bloc package and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments as odified are agreed to.
2:00 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in 115-650. house report for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. roskam: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. roskam of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: the roskam amendment recognizes my constituency and i think a lot of others want the benefit living near large international airport but not as much of the burden and here's the back story what's going on. so my constituency is right next door to o'hare airport as an international airport brings
2:01 pm
incredible convenience to my flying constituents and also incredible commerce and opportunity. that's a good thing. the problem is that the burdens of the noise of the airport rest disproportionately with some communities and these are communities that have found themselves with different flight patterns in different situations where all of a sudden a flight pattern from years ago is now something that they're seeing overhead. one constituent of mine in wayne, illinois, complained that the noise sometimes is 30 seconds apart for hours on end. another complained their house actually shakes because of the planes that are flying so close. mr. chairman, you can imagine how difficult this would be to live in this type of situation. realizing we want the benefits of an international airport and also as quiet a situation as possible, i worked with my republican and democrat colleagues to find common
2:02 pm
ground. a scientist at the massachusetts institute of technology has completed computer modeling and found reducing plane takeoff speed by 35 miles per hour would dramatically reduce the noise pollution cause and it would only lengthen flight time by a mere 30 seconds. this commonsense amendment directs the f.a.a. to study this proposal and report back to congress on whether or not this will alleviate the nuisance that too many of my constituents have had to deal with. want to thank my colleague across the aisle, congresswoman speier, and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to speak in favor of the amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of the amendment. actually i recently had a
2:03 pm
conversation with the acting f.a.a. administrator on this very subject, and i think it is something that could help mitigate since we moved to performance-based navigation and, you know, changed for more efficient approaches to save fuel, the airlines are benefiting tremendously but it has concentrated the noise over a narrower area. i also asked the f.a.a. if it would be possible to vary the approaches on performance-based so you are not always every day, every hour, every, you know, whatever minute going over exactly the same position. and i think that's also something they should look at. so with that i certainly support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. roskam: i want to thank the gentleman from oregon for his support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye.
2:04 pm
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in 650. a of house report 115- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. denham: mr. speaker, i rise to offer in support. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from california, mr. denham,
2:05 pm
and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer the bipartisan denham-costa amendment number 142 which eliminates duplication of environmental reviews. the map-21 highway bill created the nepa assignment program in 2012 which allows states to assume responsibility for environmental review, consultation and compliance of nepa for federal aid highway projects and other perhaps projects. the program removes an entire layer of federal bureaucracy from the nepa process, allowing states and counties to operate more efficiently. nepa's assignment has been a success, saving time and cost of infrastructure projects ray cross six states -- california, texas, florida, ohio, utah, and alaska.
2:06 pm
two more states, arizona and nebraska, are in the process of applying, and all 50 states are eligible to participate. the transportation and infrastructure committee built on the success of the nepa assignment program in the 2015 fast act by establishing the nepa reciprocity program. the nepa reciprocity program allows states with environmental laws that are at least as stringent as nepa to make the approval of reviews under state laws and regulations and in replacement of nepa. this allows states to remove parallel and redundant nepa requirements from their own environmental process, which will get projects built faster, and it will lower costs. in other words, this only -- this not only allows one environmental review, but stops us from doing two. as reasonable and promising as this program is, the judicial review period or window that litigants can challenge a record of decisions is nearly
2:07 pm
five times longer than for federal aid highway projects that are subject to nepa. the judicial review period for the reciprocity program is two years. substantially increasing the risk of litigation and dissuading states from pursuing the program. this amendment harmonizes the statute of limitations for the program with other federal highway projects to 150 days. instead of delaying two years for lawsuits, we do it in 150 days, the same as all other federal highway projects. the commonsense change would render the program workable as originally intended in the fast act. this program would allow states impacted by the 2017 major disasters to rebuild devastated communities faster, and it will lower costs, saving taxpayer dollars. many wildfire impacted counties in california have benefited from nepa reciprocity for their
2:08 pm
recovery efforts and are pushing the state to participate. this amendment would allow california and other impacted states with major disasters like texas and florida to apply and rebuild in short order. in september, 2017, the department of transportation issued the notice of proposed rulemaking and the comment period closed in november. d.o.t. should issue the rule to establish the program soon, and this modification must be in place for the program to be workable at that time. there's been a lot of discussion about environmental review and permitting reform being included in the infrastructure package. and for good reason. projects take too long and they cost way too much money. we have an opportunity to ensure streamlining programs that are already law are working correctly by passing this amendment. i'd now like to yield the balance of my time to mr. costa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise
2:09 pm
today in support of the amendment being offered by congressman denham and myself, h.r. 4, and i thank the gentleman for yielding time. together, we have worked long and hard to reduce the duplicated environmental permitting requirements that can contribute, as we know, to delays and delivery of important transportation projects throughout the nation and throughout california, as both congressman denham and i experienced. california finds at the forefront to streamline the transportation project delivery process without compromising the natural environment and complying with environmental laws. as a matter of fact, we have a very big initiative that was passed last year to provide another $52 billion in construction projects over the next 10 years. so this is an important amendment. 2015, congress passed the fast act, which implemented a pilot program to provide reciprocity
2:10 pm
for environmental permitting and requirements with states like california that have laws that provide equal or greater environmental protection, and that's the case with california. that's why this amendment is so applicable and why it makes such good common sense. this amendment would further streamline the delegation process, as the gentleman noted, reduce project delivery times and costs, lead to more projects being constructed at a faster rate and improve our deteriorating infrastructure. for all these good reasons, we ought to adopt this amendment. concur. colleagues to i yield back to my colleague the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman, your time has expired. time has expired. does any member rise in opposition? mr. defazio: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five
2:11 pm
minutes. mr. defazio: mr. chairman, although i rose in opposition, my principal concern was this was a very -- this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation as we adopted the fast act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot projects. and we gave the task, as we normally do, to the department of transportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the pilot program and -- but d.o.t. has not yet acted to establish those rules. i've concerns about putting scriptures on the department of transportation before they have an opportunity to, you know, implement the rule, which hopefully will be soon forthcoming. i assume it's not one of these rules that the president has held up from being issued since is ould be something that beneficial if properly done. with that i yield back the
2:12 pm
balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. 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. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.r. 839, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number two consisting of amendments number 38, 2, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 0, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 59, 61, 62, 7, 58,
2:13 pm
64, and 65 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. shuster of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i support considering these amendments en bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and minority. these members put forward thoughtful amendments, and i'm pleased to be able to support moving them en bloc. mr. chairman, i reserve the alance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. defazio: i'd yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you. i want to thank the committee for including amendment 111 in this en bloc. after the tragic fires we've seen in california, we must do everything possible to protect our communities. in san diego, helicopters and
2:14 pm
air tankers had to be grounded during firefights after recreational drones were spotted in the area. these drones can pose a risk to the aircraft and the emergency personnel flying overhead. that's why my amendment would protect emergency response efforts from interruptions by drones and direct the f.a.a. to work with local agencies to inform the public about this issue. i want to thank, again, the committee for your tireless work on this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cramer: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. mr. speaker, the northern plains unmanned aircraft system testing site in grand forks, south dakota, is doing extensive work with private industry stakeholders advancing this very important emerging
2:15 pm
industry. however, the growth of the u.a.s. industry is relyant on receiving dedicated spectrum allocation to ensure the connection for beyond visual line of sight operations. my amendment simply directs the f.a.a., the ntia and the f.c.c. to submit to congress a report on whether u.a.s. operations of all sizes, at all altitudes, should be permitted to operate on spectrum that's designated for aviation use. it may also include recommendations of other licensed spectrum frequencies, such as l.t.e., that may be appropriate for flying u.a.s. i encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment to advance the u.a.s. industry and i look forward to working with stakeholders and members of the senate to take it across the finish line and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. tea fazio: i yield to mr.cies lynny. mr. cicilline: i rise to support the en bloc amendment
2:16 pm
which includes my amendment h.r. 4. i thank the chairman and ranking minority member for their work on this bill as well as the inclusion of a section to provide airlines with a one-page description of their rights as passengers. my amendment will amend this section to ensure passengers are notified what compensation irlines provide, including rebooking options, refunds, meals and lodging if a passenger's flight is diverted. i thank the chairman and ranking member for rebooking options, including this and for their efforts and urge adoption of this this very pro-consumer amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i just want to thank you for taking our amendment and including it en bloc amendment. it's a g.a.o. study of revenue diversion by airports. i think it's for three different reasons. ties to the very heart
2:17 pm
of equity, fairness. the idea of all entities under lob being treated equally. what we have now is a ties to t tradition where 20 airports have been exempted in a way that the other 380 primary airports in this country are not. two, this is about recognizing that you can't use that which you divert. in 2015 alone, more than $1 billion was divert interested airport operations to other, and if we're going to say we need more money, let's use the money we have. which brings me to my final point. you can't spend what you have what should always spend have before you go asking for more. i think this is particularly important when you start putting $130 billion of need wh have before you go within the airport system you simply spend what's in the system first before you go to the taxpayer asking for more. with that i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the chairman for the time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the
2:18 pm
gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the en bloc package which includes my amendment to the f.a.a. re-authorization act relating to air passenger was disabilities. i also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including air passengers with disabilities bill of rights in the manager's amendment. the act was enacted in 1986 to prohibit description based on disability and air travel. despite progress, travelers with disabilities still encounter barriers. my amendment requires the secretary of transportation to review and if necessary revise regulations issued under the act t focuses on providing timely, more effective assistance to people with disabilities, including hands on training for airline personnel. inadequate assistance for people with disabilities can lead to unacceptable delay, missed flights, and passenger injuries. we can and must do better. mr. speaker, i have traveled over the worrell and dealt
2:19 pm
with over the worrell and dealt with those airlines to do the things right way and treat people with disabilities with respect and good processes in place and other airlines that need more improvement and work harder at this. these amendments and this bill will help us get there. i thank the chair and ranking member for their hard work. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from indiana, mr. banks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. banks: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i want to thank you and my -- mr. chairman and my colleagues for their work on this underlying legislation. my amendment is simple. it would designate the hangar at smith airfield in fort wayne, in my district, as the national air mail museum. currently there is no such museum with this particular designation. i want to also make clear my amendment prohibits any federal funding to support this important initiative for the community. it is a zero cost amendment.
2:20 pm
the significance of hangar number 2, which is the only example of clark w. smith's patented care sell design, makes it a fine fit for this designation. in 1911, the united states postal service began air mail delivery and in 1930, commercial air mail service came to smith airfield. this recognition would be a great addition to my community and a vital tool to educate the american people on the significant role air mail played in the evolution of aviation. furthermore, such recognition wouldpropel the ongoing initiative to preserve and share the history of air mail. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the en bloc amendment and support the preservation of air mail history. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield one minute to it the gentleman from
2:21 pm
arizona, mr. o'halleran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. o'halleran: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to take a moment thank the chairman and ranking member for their support of my commonsense, bipartisan amendment that strengthens our commitment to rural america. the esention service is a critical link for residents and businesses in small and rural communities by linking service to hub airports in 36 states. e.a.s. services is an important economic tool in local communities. two communities in my district benefit from e.a.s. which allows business there is to access larger markets and compete at a level playing field. amendment simply requires the controller general to analyze the impacts any proposed reforms to e.a.s. -- reports to congress would have on the local communities that depend on the program. at a time when rural america is still recovering from economic recession, we should be working together to revitalize communities and create jobs.
2:22 pm
e.a.s. is a vital resource. in many of these communities across america and we must continue to protect it. i thank congressman don young for co-sponsoring this amendment and being a stalwart champion for e.a.s. i thank the chairman for including it in their en bloc package. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: prepared to close. if the gentleman from oregon has other speakers. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. panetta. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. panetta: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, member defazio. also chairman shuster, thank you very much. our families have some history, i also appreciate your friendship and leadership o on this issue. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 4. my amendment will ensure that the pay-per-view studies alternative ways to measure sound over a period of time such as actual noise sampling to properly capture the
2:23 pm
experience of those on the ground. i offer this amendment for my constituents. people who lived in communities the ere once quiet until f.a.a. and nextgen changed the routes over their houses. back in 2015. their health, sleep, their pets, well-being were all affected by the sound of jet engines, air brakes, and landing gear. i appreciate the work f.a.a. has done to get us closetory quieter skies in my community as well as a select committee on these issues and their work with the pay-per-view. like many members who have districts who have faced these types of airplane-u airplane noise concern, believe that the existing day-night level 65 decibel standard is out of date, out of touch, and inadequate to measure the amount of sound pollution impacting our communities. my amendment would ensure not just alternative ways but proper ways to study noise sampling. i appreciate the committee for including this amendment en bloc. thank you.
2:24 pm
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. bigs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is straightforward and simply requires the department of transportation to provide a cost benefit analysis to congress before moving forward with changes to what's commonly referred to as mishandled baggage reporting rule f d.o.t. wants to alter a sensible reporting requirement that's been in place for decades t. should at the very least be asked to justify with a cost benefit analysis. with that i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. i would yield back the balance of my time.
2:25 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields. he gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is n ott amendment is recognized. mr. shuster: thank en bloc offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in part a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41, printed in part a of house 115-650, offered by mr. higgins of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
2:26 pm
gentleman from louisiana. mr. higgins: 115-650, thank you speaker. my amendment is very simple. if adopted it would require the administrator -- administrator of the federal aviation administration to initiate a 10-year pilot program to permit operators of state airplanes to conduct operations in medium-hub or nonhub airports. this pilot program would additionally require that participate in airports certify each year that they wish to remain in the program. the whole purpose of my amendment is to allow rural airports that are located outside of more heavily populated areas to have the ability to conduct commercial and noncommercial activities that currently are not allowed. mr. speaker, this is a pro-business and commonsense amendment and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. and the passage of chairman shuster's underlying bill. thank you. i yield back.
2:27 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon -- defazio: claim time in opposition. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: we have already heard defazio: claim a lot toda complaints and stage two are very noisy aircraft. they were phased out of revenue ervice about 15 years ago. they are noisy, consume more fuel, and i'm not quite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what this pilot program would look like. i have a number of concerns amendment. but i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from louisiana ask unanimous consent to reclaim his time? mr. higgins: yes, thank you, mr. speaker.
2:28 pm
the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. he has four minutes. mr. higgins: the gentleman yields. the chair: the gentleman is recognized from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i believe this amendment that negotiates a pilot program allows small numbers of these aircraft to land in the united states for maintenance services. i understand what the gentleman is trying to do. no community would have these older aircraft land at their airports unless they certify annually and willing to accept them. again i think the gentleman is trying to create jobs in his district, rural area that the noise will not affect it. put hardworking louisianians to work fixing these claims that still operate around the caribbean. i support the gentleman on this. and urge colleagues to support the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from louisiana eserves. the gentleman has no time remaining.
2:29 pm
the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand in support of this amendment and i respect my colleagues' concerns. i have communicated thoroughly with my constituents in rural areas that would benefit from this amendment and allow the further use of rural airports without interfering with neighborhoods. it has broad support. my friend across the communities that i represent. i urge my colleague to reconsider and support my amendment. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 42, printed in art a of house report 115-650.
2:30 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. number 42. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42, printed in part-a of house report number 115-650. oferede by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: mr. chairman, years ago people used to refer to the tome stone mentality at the -- tombstone mentality at the f.a.a. where fatal accidents happen, loss of rutter control, other things that could have been prevented with maintenance.
2:31 pm
we have moved from that point to a more engaged f.a.a., except congress has imposed a tombstone mentality on the f.a.a. at the behest of chinese battery manufacturers and large, you know, firms in the u.s. who utilize those batteries, an amendment was placed into a previous bill that prohibits the f.a.a. from exercising their judgment about the safety of the carriage of lithium batteries on airplanes. instead, we are bound to an nternational convention, the i ko, who is very responsive in terms of seeking lowest common denominator regulation of anything they can. normally we lead the world. normally we would say, no, get this stuff off aircraft. we've lost two 747's, two
2:32 pm
747's. they were cargo aircraft. went down because of lithium batteries. it only takes a very few lithium batteries -- do we have the lithium battery? this is packaging of lithium battery. this is what happens with those lithium batteries if just one overheats and starts a spontaneous reaction. again, catastrophic to the aircraft. now, we are temporarily under n i.k.o. rule that says that they should not be carried in passenger aircraft but they are still being regularly carried of cargo aircraft. we have oceans. we have freighters.
2:33 pm
they have containers. you can plan ahead. two months from now they'll say, these won't go in the air because there are a couple of pilots that will lose their lives, kind of concerns me, and, well, what happens if the 747 comes down in a populated area? oops, a lot more people lose their lives. two months from now you can say it won't be on aircraft anymore and neck put them in confeigns taners -- and they can put them in containers that will not endanger people on the ground and in all probability will not lead to fatalities if there was an uncontained spontaneous ignition of these batteries. even worse, this administration s designated that the -- you pipeline his -- material safety agency, will
2:34 pm
take over the authority of the regulation and the negotiation of the regulation of lithium batteries from the f.a.a. what does fem that, pipeline afety material hazardous agency know about lithium? nothing, nada, zero. the chinese battery manufacturers -- now, theoretically they are safer now because they can be only the chinese but forget to do them. this is an accident waiting to happen. it's an imposition of a tombstone mentality by the .a.a. on congress. until there is another proven crash due to lithium batteries we can't regulate. really? another proven crash we can't
2:35 pm
regulate? let's give the f.a.a. the authority to regulation these batteries. they can probably develop containers that they -- maybe they can go and be on the aircraft but there are other ways of moving these batteries in world commerce. i would urge adoption of my mentality -- my amendment and the repeal of the tombstone mentality mandate on the f.a.a. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. it would repeal existing law that's been in place since 2012. the law generally provents d.o.t. from adopting lit yum battery regulation that's not harmonized with international standards. existing law represents a balanced approach that allows d.o.t. to issue regulations that exceed international requirements if the secretary is credible -- has credible evidence that lithium batteries
2:36 pm
would substantially create onboard fire. they are shipped safely by air every year. shipments by air in the u.s. -- in the u.s. in 2017 were valued at approximately $120 billion, which also means there's thousands of jobs attached to these. aviation is a global industry, and it's very important there not be a patchwork of regulations. international body studying lithium transfer requirements has been very active on the ishuned the united states has been centrally involved. in reality, the international efforts on lithium battery has long been ahead of the d.o.t. in terms of implementing requirements. additionally, h.r. 4 contains the focus on safety, transporting the products that almost all americans rely on. ensures expert participation in all panels and working groups of international tests or standard setting organizations which the united states participates. it avoids creating a burdensome patchwork of regulations, provides the secretary of
2:37 pm
transportation with the authority to deal with this, creates a lithium battery safety -- air safety advisory committee to ensure the best and safest policy positions are developed and synchronized in the u.s. this amendment would put exclusive powers to represent the united states internationally to transport issues in the hands of the f.a.a. despite hazardous materials affecting all modes of transportation. currently the secretary of transportation staff torle directed to represent the united states in international forums to transporting hazardous materials in international commerce. the secretary -- this discretion appropriately rests with the secretary. experts agree that uniform international transportation regulation is a key to safety, so i would urge all members to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. well, this doesn't tell the f.a.a. nor mandate the f.a.a. to regulate lithium batteries.
2:38 pm
it would allow the status quo, the f.a.a. would have the authority to determine whether they represent inordinant risk and there should be scriptures put upon their transport, hether it's cargo, as far as following the lowest common denominator. you know, airplane manufacturers see the risk. according to the international coordination council for aerospace industries association, which includes boeing and airbus, they say, quote, existing cargo compartment fire protection systems are unable to suppress or extinguish a fire having lithium batteries, therefore, carrying bith aluminum batteries is an unacceptable risk to the transport industry. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my colleague's
2:39 pm
passion on this issue. would, again, having a system that's harmonized throughout the world is critical. i.k.o. has already said in their standard they recommend we don't carry them on passenger aircraft. so our industry in america has done that. further, the companies that ship cargo, u.p.s., fedex, are working and i've seen some of their -- what they've done to make sure that the crews of cargo planes are protected. again, private industry understands this, and they are moving forward to develop these systems that contain it or suppression systems so, again, i believe that the best way forward is to, again, harmonize with the rest of the world and continue to ship billions of dollars of these batteries safely every year. i encourage my colleagues to not support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the
2:40 pm
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 ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: 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 oregon will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 44 will not be offered. it's now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in art a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to affirm what the speaker already knows, that i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
2:41 pm
designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i would skeck that the amendment be mod -- ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 46 printed in house report 115-650. mr. cohen: i ask unanimous consent that we not listen more to the modification but continue on to debate. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the modification? hearing none, the gentleman from tennessee is -- mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i support this amendment offered by my colleague, mr.
2:42 pm
woodall, and spearheaded in the senate, military pilot, mother, great member, tammy duckworth of illinois, and senator perdue. this amendment is common sense, ensures the safety of the flying public. it streamlines an onerous process that's led to unintended burdens and delays on state department of motor vehicles across the country and delays getting perspective pilots eligible for employment. this does nothing to remove protections from pilots and their privacy already in federal law. in 1996, congress passed the pilot records improvement act which mandated the airlines obtain driving records of all prospective employees from the national driver registry. an unintended consequence came about requiring the state licensing official could approve such request. this has caused delays at d.m.v.'s and currently most employees must request these records from missouri since they are the sole state still willing to access the national drivers registry from request of all parties. that is not what was intended
2:43 pm
and it requires a simple and technical fix that this amendment does bring about. that 1996 law also clearly and strictly stipulated written consent airlines required from pilots before turning their records and spells out strict guidelines on the privacy and use of that information. they cannot sell that information. with that i support the amendment and ask that we approve it, be voted on and approved. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment even though i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. this amendment would streamline the process for airlines to obtain information from the national driver register airlines pilots seeking employment. i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back.
2:44 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i'd like to take my remaining time to thank mr. shuster for his work on this bill and mr. defazio for his work, too. they did bring about an excellent bill and i'm proud to support and i've been proud to be a member of the committee as mr. shuster as the chair. he's done an outstanding job and done his father's memory as great chairman even greater honor. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment as modified offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in part a of house report 115-650.
2:45 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, i rise to speak in support of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. burgess of texas. . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i offer an amendment to prevent a person from operating an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace if that aircraft is equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon. unless that equipment is authorized by the administrator of the federal aviation administration. i have introduced this important language as the no-armed drones act since the
2:46 pm
112th congress. n 2015 an 18-year-old in connecticut built a drone mounted with a 45-balance ger semiautomatic handgun capable of firing live ammunition while flying. this individual demonstrated dr a 45-balance how easy it was for a private citizen to create and operate an armed drone in his youtube video entitled, flying gun. police did not arrest this person saying that no violation of law had occurred. according to the then chief of police in clinton, connecticut, where the drone video was made, this appeared to be a case of technology surpassing current legislation. in response to this and other drone incidents, government agencies are developing counter drone technology to redirect rogue drones. police say their greatest fear
2:47 pm
with the increase in the us -- drones is eational their militarization. flying drones with arms quoted here less than lethal weapons ince 2015, something many in law enforcement say they are not comfortable doing. the use of drones for regular business operations is increasing and that is a good law enforcement say they are thing. farmers use drones to inspect crops. security companies use drones to conduct surveillance over guarded properties. home repair companies use drones to assess damage on structures. and drones crops. security companies use are even to be used for home delivery services. while these abilities may prove convenient to our daily lives, we must not let the civilian applications of drone technology advance to weaponization. outside of the united states,
2:48 pm
terrorist groups in the middle east have used small drones as weapons. there is real concern that homegrown extremists in the united states could do the same thing. it is imperative that we take steps to protect the public before death by armed drone becomes a headline. there is no statute in the united states code that affirm ive -- affirmatively states that an unmanned system may not be used in the airspace as a weapon. this amendment today protects the public from drones that both een weaponized lethal and nonlethal by private citizens by preventing a person flying an armed drone in national airspace without f.a.a. authorization. a person who violates this be fined a ay civil penalty of up to be fined civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation under the statute. . i offer this language to the f.a.a. re-authorization act of 2018 in order to align our current legislation with
2:49 pm
available technology. it is time we take a preemptive rather than reactive step to protect all americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: claim time on this amendment. the chair: is the gentleman opposed? mr. defazio: i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection. mr. defazio: i support this amendment, mr. chairman. this seems very common sense to me. earlier in the en bloc my amendment was adopted which would give the f.a.a. authority to begin regulation of these small drones which currently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by congress. if this passes but that will allow the f.a.a., if my amendment stands in conference, to adopt this commonsense rule.
2:50 pm
should my amendment not be adopted in conference with the senate and we pass this, the f.a.a. would not have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they are prohibited from regulating them. hopefully both things will occur. i recommend adoption of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield? does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. defazio: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider
2:51 pm
amendment number 49 printed in part a of house report number 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? perlmutter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49, printed in part a of house report number 115-650, offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 83 , the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself three minutes. first i want to thank chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for working with me and mr. polis listening to our oncerns and appreciate their assistance. today to offer an amendment we have been working on for almost three years. which is designed to improve helicopter fuel system safety
2:52 pm
for newly manufactured helicopters. today to offer an amendment we have been working on for almost as the chairman no, sir on july 3, 2013, a flight for life helicopter took off in colorado and seconds later it crashed in a parking lot next to the helipad. after impact gasoline began to leak from the helicopter and a fire quickly erupted, trapping the crew. the crash itself was largely survivable. ut the post-crash fire contributed to the death of the pilot, patrick, and severely burned the two flight nurses, dave and matthew. one of the flight nurses suffered burns on more than 90% of his body. as we began learning what happened in frisco, we discovered that a 1994 f.a.a. rule making required all newly certified helicopter designs to incorporate crash resistant fuel systems. the problem is that helicopter designs are certified once and then can be manufactured for years. so new helicopters like the
2:53 pm
1-year-old helicopter which crashed in frisco, colorado, are being built to a now unsafe design from the 1970's. mr. chairman, this is wrong and since that 1994 rule making there have been more than 175 post-crash fires and at least 80 deaths. we can do better. we must do better. nce 2015, the f.a.a. has finally started to address the issue. they convened the roto craft document protection working group and tasked them with determining what requirements to place on newly manufactured helicopters moving forward. that working group submitted their final report last month and made evidence - based recommendations about what safety features should be required. my amendment today implements those recommendations of the working group by requiring all newly manufactured helpers to -- helicopters to be built
2:54 pm
with safer fuel systems within 18 months. we have known about this problem for decades and it's past time we close the loophole from 1994 and improve the safety of these helicopters. two people deserve special thanks. patrick's wife, karen, for -- h with safer her tireless advocacy for safer helicopters, and chris from kusa channel 9 for his diligent reporting about the dangers of these fragile and outdated fuel systems. i'd also like to thank air methods, air medical operators association, general aviation manufactures association, and association international for working with me and my staff. i'd ask unanimous consent to insert letters of support into the record from air association international methods, h.h.i., and amoa. as i said i'd like to thank chairman shuster an ranking member defazio. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. perlmutter: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise to claim time in opposition though i do
2:55 pm
not oppose. the chair: without objection. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for offering his amendment. this affered implements critical recommendations from the f.a.a.'s rotor craft occupation protection working group. specifically it will require newly manufactured helicopters to meet specific safety standards to prevent post-crash fires from occurring. in many cases fatal helicopter accidents are due to post-crash fires rather than the impact. eequipping these new helicopters with crash resistant fuel systems is very critical. i thank the gentleman for his continued leadership and perfectisence. when i say persistence the gentleman has been working this issue for a number of years. again i congratulate him for that effort. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i yield to another gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i want to thank
2:56 pm
representative perlmutter. i'm proud to join him in offering this amendment which comes in direct response to a tragedy that occurred in the district i'm honored to represent and countless others across the country. as representative perlmutter mentioned back in 2015 there was a flight for life crash in frisco, colorado. the pilot, patrick, died and one person onboard is still in the recovery process. the death and damage was caused not directly from the crash but from the lack of a crash resistant fuel system. that's already mandated in military helicopters. for some ridiculous reason it's not mandated in civilian aircrafts like the life flight helicopter. i want to thank the widow of patrick, karen, for keeping this issue in front and foremost. i know how difficult it must be to go through a personal mourning process but then look above that and say let's stop this tragedy from affecting other families. that's what karen has done by putting herself out there.
2:57 pm
honored to be supportive of this amendment here today that will save lives. and made sure that patrick is among the last to suffer honore this amendment here from a loss of life from this lack of a simple, safety equipment in helicopters. this important amendment simply requires the f.a.a. to mandate crash resistant fuel systems in newly manufactured helicopters. i'm also working on a tax credit to help fund retrofitting of existing helicopters. we can't let another tragedy lead to loss of life from an avoidable problem. all helicopters should be equipped with the best, most effective, and cost-effective technology available. i strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment and ensure that this is part of the final bill that comes out of the house and senate as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: simply to say we have no other speakers on this. i ask for an aye vote on amendment 49. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
2:58 pm
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in art a of house report 115-650. mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. it's now in order to considered amendment number 60 printed in house report number 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60, printed in part a of house report number 115-650, offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman
2:59 pm
from california, mr. rohrabacher, and a member opposed, each are control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank congressman defazio and of course chairman shuster for their hard work that they put into this. unfortunately, my amendment as it indicates that a large part of the job that i would have hoped would have been accomplished by the f.a.a. re-authorization was not done in a way that handles what is in my area the most significant problem. there are a great many provisions there are, but my i am ent today, which advocating today, seeks to correct one area that has been given under under well mingly treatment. that's called correcting the problems of air noise over our
3:00 pm
neighborhoods. my amendment, the amendment we're discussing at this point, will ensure that aircraft transitioning from flight over oceans to flight over land be no lower than is absolutely necessary for safety. many times over our coastal communities planes are flying much lower on approach after taking off and briefly climbing back over the ocean and then over the land. there is no reason that some rcraft need to be at 1,600 feet when other aircraft can safely fly at 353,500 feet. this amendment will correct that problem. . it will require those aircraft that are coming over the ocean and onto land and into some flight pattern in our local airports and nationally in those airports, that they fly at the highest altitude that is safe in this situation. unfortunately i have had four amendments that were not
3:01 pm
permitted, that would have corrected the noise problem altogether. and it would have said that we would have then been able to address it, because, and the reason it wasn't addressed, as the bill was being prepared, is that this legislation and the regulations of the f.a.a. say that safety will be the first priority, efficiency will be the second priority, and then community impact, on those communities below, have third priority. well, the fact is there is no reason why, number one, safety does have to be first. we know that. but there is no reason why the excessive noise and the impact of noise and pollution on the cities below a landing area, or a taking off area, should not have more consideration than simply the efficiency of the airlines to save a few minutes. i suggest and i am very upset that those amendments that would have corrected this problem, number one, all we have to do is make sure that we are mandating
3:02 pm
the right priorities for the f.a.a. that efficiency is less important than the communities that are being flown over, because every day they have to experience, those people have to experience noise and pollution due to the fact that they live near an airport. so, those amendments, however, were not made in order. and i would officially hope that we can deal with that later. but that is a great disservice to those people around the country who are suffering excessive noise that didn't need to happen. so my bill, and this amendment, -- far enough in terms of we should be solving the problem by changing the priorities and mandating that all airplanes fly, when they're flying over populated areas, that people who they're flying over have to be given consideration by making sure that that plane is flying
3:03 pm
at the highest altitude that is safe. unfortunately, as i say, the amendments that i offered, that would have mandated that, actually were not made in order. and this bill does, this amendment will come to grips for a little bit on this issue. but we had an opportunity here to change and to solve one of the basic complaints that are being made throughout our country by american citizens when dealing with air traffic. and our job isn't here -- when we are here, our job isn't just to watch out for the airliners. that's not it. we have to be considered about the american people -- considerate about the american people and especially those people whose homes are there underneath the flight patterns. that is not what's happened in this legislation, and i'm very disturbed about it because i had five amendments that would have solved this problem once and for all, would have been fair to the
3:04 pm
airlines, would have made sure people were safe, but at the same time we would see that the american people who live underneath these flight paths were treated fairly and that their families were not put at risk by excessive noise and by pollution that comes from airlines flying overhead. so i yield back the balance of my time and ask for my amendment to be accepted. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i appreciate the fact that the gentleman is representing very well his constituents' concerns. we had an earlier discussion on the floor of the aircraft noise. an amendment was adopted to have the f.a.a. study the speed of approach, which apparently can dramatically reduce, and take off, which can dramatically reduce the noise impact. i've also asked the f.a.a. to
3:05 pm
look at establishing alternate performance based navigation routes so they're not using the same route every day over the same houses and the same neighborhoods. when i first saw this amendment, i thought it was, you know, it seemed to me innocuous since it seems to follow the basic requirement in the controller 7110.65,, f.a.a. order section 651. which addresses this issue. however, we have been contacted by the national air traffic controllers union and they have expressed grave concerns that they think it may have unintended consequences. unfortunately they just contacted us so we haven't been able to get the details of their concerns. in that case, i would have to oppose the amendment. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment
3:06 pm
offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rohrabacher: i ask for a recorded vote on that, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it is now in order to consider .mendment number 63 for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the clerk: amendment number 63 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr.
3:07 pm
king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that this house has seen before in different configurations. but it's known as the davis-bacon amendment. and what it does, it provides that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, to administer or enforce the prevailing rate of wage requirements commonly referred to as the davis-bacon act. mr. chairman, i think that we know what this bill does. in 1931 it was established for, i'll say trade protectionism, labor protectionism, to lock the african-american labor from alabama out of the construction trades in new york city that were uniized at that time and strong -- unionized at that time and strongly protected and still are, actually. but the substance of it is this.
3:08 pm
i have a letter here that was written by grover norquist, the president of americans for tax reform. and in summary, it says this. because the davis-bacon act reduces the number of jobs, increases costs and has a racist history, funds from the f.a.a. re-authorization act should not be used to fulfill davis-bacon act requirements. americans for tax reform therefore strongly support congressman king's amendment. and that's one version of description of this bill. here's another that i thought was a little bit more dedescriptive. this is an article written by george will and it's dated june 19, 2017. he references back to river city and he says, a quote from that, the music man, you really ought to give iowa a try, provided you are contrary. and he starts out this article this way and the quote is from iowa stubborn, the song in "the
3:09 pm
music man." it says contrary does not cover king's stricken generalsy. he was born appropriately in storm lake, iowa, and carries turbulence with him. he also carries experience of actual life before policies or excuse me, actual life before politics, when he founded a construction company which is one reason he has long advocated an excellent idea, repeal of the davis-bacon law. king came to congress in 2003 and has been stubbornly submitting repeal legislation since 2005. he would not have succeeded even if he were less of a prickly cactus and more of a shrinking violet. davis-bacon is just another piece of government that is as indefensible as it is indestructiveable. and so today, when social -- indestructible. and so today when social high generalists are cleansing the square of statues tainted with racism, davis-bacon's durability is proof that a measure's racist pedigree will be forgiven if the
3:10 pm
measure serves a progressive agenda. it's time to put an and he to -- an end to davis-bacon. we can do that here today, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. this is a perpetual debate here on the floor, whenever it comes to the expenditure of federal tax dollars. on projects that are covered by davis-bacon, as would be projects under the airport improvement program and other related activities by the f.a.a. bottom line here is we can chase the lowest common denominator around the united states or around the world sometimes in terms of trade. and undermine the capability of americans to make a decent living. you know, to have a home and have a family and live the american dream.
3:11 pm
the savings are illosery at best. in many cases twhee go to profits for -- cases they would go to profits for nonunion shops and others and we would return to the old days of, you know, basically exploiting those who work in construction and related activities. with that, i would yield -- how much time do you want? ok, a minute to the gentleman, mr. kildee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. defazio both for yielding but especially for his leadership on this issue. as the ranking member said, this is something that comes up every year. thankfully democrats and republicans have stood together to protect this important worker protection. and let's just be clear about this. this is about the desire to engage in this race to the bottom, to pay working families less money. the truth of the matter is,
3:12 pm
coming from a community, a community like flint, where we've seen significant and continuing loss of earned income by working people, where we have a chance to say to the american people that when it's your tax dollars being spent, we're not going to use them to undermine the ability of a family to have a decent wage. people work hard at these jobs, they have trained long for these jobs, going through apprenticeships or other skilled training. and the idea that we would reverse a decades' long commitment to the american worker, that when it comes to federally funded projects we're going to ensure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you get a decent wage, i support that and we all should. thank you and i yield back. mr. defazio: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. chairman, may i inquire aus as to how much time is re-- as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes.
3:13 pm
mr. king: and on the other side, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has three minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i hear these arguments constantly. lowest common denominator, nonunion shops. we know what's union scale, there's a confession that it is. even though the law says it's prevailing wage. exploiting workers, race to the bottom, people work hard. these are standard thrines come out every year -- lines that come out every year. but i'm the one that's lived this. we pay a competitive wage and we want to hair the best people we can -- hire the best people we can and pay them the best wages we can and we want to have the lowest turnover possible and we're in pretty good shape that way after 42 years. i think i know about this. davis-bacon increases inefficiencies and it puts people in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, for the wrong incentives, and by the way, who's hardworking? the taxpayers are hardworking. the taxpayers are paying the bill for an extra 20% on every
3:14 pm
construction project in america, in a lot of cases we're borrowing the money from china and putting debt onto our children. that's what we're faced with here, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. look. look around the country. there are many states that have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. that's pretty pathetic. my state is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum wake. but if we do away with -- this says that federally funded contracts must receive the local prevailing wage for their work. in oregon we've recognized that with a higher minimum wage. so our prevailing wages are going to be higher than some state that pays -- that only follows the federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.
3:15 pm
so, what might some contractor do? oh, i can go over here and hire people who are used to earning $7.50, i'm going to import them into oregon, of course you're going to still have a problem with our minimum wage law, but this is what this is about. is to find less expensive labor and move it around the country. and that, i believe, is a disservice to the working people of the united states. i would urge congress, as it has done every other time this amendment has been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from iowa has one minute. mr. king: in close, i appreciate the gentleman's remarks but i would add that the federal minimum wage is not relevant at all to the davis-bacon wage scale debate. there's nobody working under
3:16 pm
davis-bacon wage scales making minimum wage. and that federal minimum wage is becoming irrelevant as competition for wages is driving things up. here's another way to think about this. i long said if it's road construction, build five miles of road instead of four if you get rid of davis-bacon. if it happens to be river construction, we lost a lock an dam on mississippi, lock and dam number 11. these things cost money. there are 29 of those. we can either fix 23 of them under davis-bacon or all 29 without davis-bacon. there are 45 major airports in america if we're going to renovate those, we can renovate all of them or 36 of them depending on whether this amendment passes or fails, mr. chairman. i urge the adoption of my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
3:17 pm
in the ponch the chair, the ayes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 15, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> pursuant to h.res. 3849 i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: enblk number 3 consisting of amendments 74, 76, 90, , 082, 83, 85, 86, 89, 100,2, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99,
3:18 pm
and 101, printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. shuster of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i support considering these amendments en bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and minority. these members put forward thoughtful amendments and i'm pleased to support moving them en bloc. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman re-- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. these amendments en bloc have been reviewed by the majority and minority and there is consensus on their merit. and i would urge my colleagues to support them. with that, i yield to my cloog from texas, representative doggett, as much time as he may
3:19 pm
consume. i would say first that i strongly supported his amendment and tried to work with the former f.a.a. administrator to rectify this issue that led to this extraordinary and unnecessary loss of life. with that, i yield such time as he may consume to mr. doggett. mr. degree et: thank you for your leadership -- mr. doggett: thank you for your leadership on that, i wish the f.a.a. had listened, i thank mr. shuster and staffs on both sides of the committee for including this amendment with others that need to be part of this action. t was about two years ago that the largest, most deadly crash of a commercial balloon in american hist are -- history occurred just south of austin near lockhart and maxwell, texas. it remains the largest aviation disaster of any type in this
3:20 pm
decade. and when that morning, that saturday morning ended, this was all that was left along with the bodies of the victims of this. the federal aviation administration had been asked prior to this incident by the national transportation safety board to take a closer look and come up with reasonable regulations for the commercial balloon industry. the f.a.a. failed to do that. since this accident, the federal aviation administration has been asked once again by the national transportation safety board to act on this matter. and the f.a.a. has again failed. the families of the victims launched a petition on their own to express their concern about this. i've joined them, others have join them. in asking for action and it is clear that only legislative action by us will address this problem. i am hopeful that with the passage of this amendment, which
3:21 pm
is narrow, which is bipartisan, and is directed only to assuring that individuals who are flying these -- lifting off in these balloons are medically fit to do so. had that been in place, i believe that this incident would never have happened. and so the grief, the horror, that these families experienced, many of them want to channel it into seing that no other family faces a similar crisis. this is a -- an incident that had a widespread effect. i talked with the owner of the property where the crash occurred, a giant prayer circle around the caldwell county courthouse of concern of many people in the county for what happened here. i want to thank my colleagues for incorporating this amendment in because i think it will help save lives in the future. and with that, i yield back.
3:22 pm
the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i now represent the gentleman from tennessee for 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer an amendment -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. for how long. mr. shuster: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise to offer an amendment to the house f.a.a. re-authorization act. i wish to thank the distinguished chairman, mr. shuster, of the committee and the ranking member, mr. defazio for the opportunity to offer this amendment. mr. fleischmann: my amendment supports our nation's more than 5,000 general aviation airports by providing a commonsense solution to reduce the cost and construction time for critical pavement projects while maintaining the highest level of safety and quality. our general aviation airports provides -- provide critical access, vital emergency and
3:23 pm
medical services, economic activity, and many other important services as vital lifelines, especially in rural areas. however, the cost of building and maintaining runways at general aviation airports has become unnecessarily burdensome and costly due to outdated payment specification requirements that the f.a.a. recognizes can and should be updated. as such in consultation with creekey industry groups and agency, i have introduced this amendment to address this issue. among many other thing, reform will better equip our dedicated network of state aviation official, airport, and other good personnel working on the front lines in maintaining and improving our nation's airports. this amendment will allow them to undertake more projects, efficiently and safely, with commonsense savings that frees up additional funding for other critical projects. more specifically, after
3:24 pm
extensive field testing that has provided concrete evidence that states can and have utilized alturntive payment mixes, procured more conveniently and cost effectively from local businesses on critical runway projects to safely maintain our nation's runway systems of general aviation airports. mr. speaker, i respectfully urge adoption of this amendment and respectfully yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, one minute. ms. moore: thank you so much. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 4 to ensure the f.a.a. is helping businesses that have been historically discriminated against when it comes to government contracting. i thank the chairman of the -- and the ranking member for their support. adoption of my amendment is a good start but needs much more
3:25 pm
-- but much more needs to be done to address discrimination related barriers that still exist this includes addressing the exclusion of any federal d.b.e. participation requirements or goals for passenger facility charge funded projects. it's critical that we don't miss the opportunity to address these barriers. i want to remind everyone that billions of dollars of transportation contracts are at stake in this re-authorization. and for businesses that have been historically discriminated against in transportation contracting, they just want a chance to compete for these dollars. in this re-authorization, congress must continue to ensure that qualified minority and women-owned businesses in every congressional district can fairly compete for work and i yield back to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentlelady yields. mr. defazio: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i yield two minutes
3:26 pm
to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. chairman. my thanks to chairman shuster and ranking member defazio. rise today in support of this en bloc package that contain misbipartisan amendment requiring the f.a.a. to study the economic impact of temporary flight restrictions on local airports. and to recommend ways to mitigate the negative effects potentially including creating security procedures to allow limited use of certain airports during a t.f.r. this is about fairness for new jersey pilots and small businesses. the president and the first family use trump national golf course in bedminster, new jersey, as a weekendres. dance in the late spring, summer, and early fall. during such visits, a t.f.r. is imposed in the area, shuttering solberg and somerset airports
3:27 pm
and grounding recreational and training flights. the safety of the first family and visitors is paramount but t.f.r.'s can be very challenging. and i want to find a compromise with the federal aviation administration and the secret service so pilots can be vetted, prescreened, and allowed to fly. this is not a new idea. for some airports in maryland, near washington, d.c., pilots are permitted limited operation after being properly vetted. i seek the same status for constituents i serve in new jersey. i thank the chairman for his interest and ask for further help in crafting this policy with the f.a.a. i further hope to work with him on establishing a temporary reimbursement program as was done for the maryland airports in the early 2000's. i urge a yes vote on this legislation and yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized.
3:28 pm
mr. defazio: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are greed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 67 printed in part a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 67 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr.
3:29 pm
beyer of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i consistently hear a great deal from my constituents about pervasive, intrusive helicopter noise. i've carefully listened to them for years. through community forums, town hall, letters, emails, phone calls and the like. i've also worked with both the f.a.a. and department of defense on possible solutions. we certainly have a difficult balance to strike in the national capital region but people shouldn't have to live under the constant thund over helicopter noise. helicopter noise which by all accounts has gotten significantly worse year after year after year. even those who are neighbors with the pentagon have noticed it's gotten much worse. last year i had an amendment to the ndaa to conduct a study on mitigating helicopter noise. we had excellent conversations,
3:30 pm
colonels and majors came out from the air force, army and marines. f.a.a. came out. big town hall meetings. and in those conversations, we moved forward with a now-completed d.o.d. noise study and the department of defense has repeatedly inform me they follow the f.a.a. helicopter maps perfectly and fly at the requires minimum altitudes. so as a solution my amendment would require the f.a.a. to review all helicopter flight paths in the national capital region, including those used solely by the department of defense, to assess whether some of these helicopter trips could be safely flown at a higher at constitute tude and if they can be, it would require the f.a.a. to amend the helicopter flight maps from this region to allow some relief for communities who live below. progress has remained very slow on this issue. glacial. and i urge my colleagues to vote yesen this amendment is we can move forward with a responsible way to mitigate this helicopter noise. i reserve the balance of my
3:31 pm
time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i do rise in opposition. this amendment would interfere with national security, homeland security, and law enforcement operations. the area serves a critical role for the country as a home to the federal government. each day military pilots and other agencies use helicopters to conduct vital missions as part of our national defense and the operations of government. these agencies include the d.o.d., coast guard, park police, capitol police and other agencies. the missions they fly cannot be accomplished with any other means and are essential to our nation's protection. this could effect the safety of our service members and law enforcement and affect the efficiency of the air space. i understand the gentleman's concern and i hope we can find some way to address them but i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. with that, i reserve the balance
3:32 pm
of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. with great respect to the chairman of the committee, the many conversations i've had with the general who runs the washington military district, with the air force and army colonels at the marine major, and with many of the helicopter pilot, none of them have suggested that national security, homeland security or law enforcement were at risk here. in fact, the pilots said, we would be happy to fly higher as long as we had permission from the f.a.a. we're not interfering in the slightest with their ability to accomplish their mission. we understand their mission, we respect it. no one is saying that we can't protect the -- not only our nation's top executives, but also the military officers who need to fly in and around this region. what they're simply saying is that in many cases 3rks00 feet, 500 fought to -- 300 feet, 500 feet, 700 feet is a more logical place to fly. people have been in apartment
3:33 pm
buildings and seen helicopters fly below their window. this happens. what we're simply asking is the f.a.a. responsibly look at whether, with lots of feedback from the army, air force, marines, from law enforcement, from the secret service, they couldn't in fact fly a few hundred feet higher than they fly right now. if they can't, we'll accept that and do our best to accept some other way. but really this is at the recommendation of our military leaders that the f.a.a. examine this and find a way to move forward. i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. shuster: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. beyer: then i will yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. shuster: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: ok. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the
3:34 pm
noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 68 printed in art a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 68 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. smith of nebraska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment, which would
3:35 pm
direct the comptroller general to study the current and future availability of pilots in the aviation work force. since the implementation of new pilot training requirements for first officers in 2013, two airlines which provided air service to my congressional district have filed for bankruptcy. citing the inability to find pilots as a primary factor in their financial struggles. even before withdrawing from nebraska, both airlines had poor flight cancellation records, which they indicated was caused by this issue. severely reducing planes at these airports. in rural areas like nebraska's third district, commercial air service provides a vital economic link for communities which are several hours' drive from the nearest major airport. in an effort to further address the concerns of the seven communities with passenger air service in my district, and numerous others around the country, this amendment merely asks g.a.o. to study what the current state of the aviation work force is, where it is going in the future, and what, if
3:36 pm
anything, we can do to mitigate pilot shortages. we must do more to address these communities' concerns and this study will provide valuable information as we seek to address this problem. beyond the direct economic impact on these communities from the loss of these flights, these cancellations have also caused at airportsanements in a number of other states to fall below the minimum 10,000 required to qualify for full airport improvement program funding. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for moving my other amendment en bloc, to provide regulatory relief to airports by treating them consistent with how they've been treated previously. again, i urge support of this amendment we are currently debating which will direct g.a.o. to study our current and future aviation work force needs, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> although i'm not opposed to the amendment, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in
3:37 pm
opposition to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i support the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. this amendment would require the comptroller general to conduct a study on the current and future supply of individuals for u.s. aviation work force. this study would review our work force as well as various entry, a strong robust work force will ensure the u.s. remains a leader in civil aviation. therefore we support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: i yield to the chairman for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, i agree with the ranking member, mr. larsen. this amendment makes a lot of sense to me. the outlook of the future supply of individuals in the work force, we know there's shortages out there. this report will inform us about the current abeation work force and make sure we have an adequate supply of workers in the future. i thank the gentleman for his leadership and thank him for
3:38 pm
offering this amendment and urge all members to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. again, this amendment just asks the comptroller general to assess our current situation for aviation and pilot needs. and canceled flights have been a major problem for communities with the smaller airlines and certainly we want to prevent something from -- in a similar manner from impacting the larger airports around the country as well. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and i urge others to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. -- the amendment is agreed to.
3:39 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 75 printed in art a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i rise to bring my amendment to the floor. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 75 printed in part a of house report 115-650 offered by mr. lewis of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. lewis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker. since 1991, federal law has
3:40 pm
stated that metropolitan planning organizations around the country should have local elected officials on their boards. in 2012 congress passed map 21 and included a clause stating that these m.p.o.'s that were not in compliance had two years to conform. now, previously in their previous administration, there was a federal clause that was used to grandfather the twin cities, minneapolis-st. paul metropolitan council into compliance without having elected officials. so we now have, in the minneapolis-st. paul region, the only board in the country that is entirely nonelected. the only m.p.o. that has the authority to independently raise taxes and is nonelected. indeed, in minneapolis-st. paul, our metropolitan planning organization has a budget that dwarfs all the others in the country. in fact, it is larger than houston, dallas, atlanta, los angeles, phoenix, seattle, washington, d.c., san francisco, boston, philadelphia, denver, miami, tampa, and chicago
3:41 pm
combined. why does an entity of this magnitude not require local elected officials? i know some defending the status quo are now making misleading claims about this amendment. about our efforts here in congress. now, first, the council does perform transportation work and their transportation advisory board does include elected officials. but the federal highway administration and frment t. -- and f.t.a. ruled in 2015 that the t.a.b. is an advisory body to the council. it is not the m.p.o. even the previous administration, the obama administration, disagreed with the council's assertion that the t.a.b. would be equivalent to a local elected official. second, the defenders of the status quo are asserting that total chaos will ensue if this amendment passes. it will be a complete mess. every other m.p.o. was either formed in compliance with elected officials, or local elected officials on its board,
3:42 pm
or it came into compliance with this federal law and none gained widespread attention for chaos. now, the defenders of the status quo, including the current council, and even the governor of the state, now assert that, well, this is too uncertain. the chaos would ensue. i would argue that having a 17-member board entirely apointed by the governor is uncertainty. uncertainty is a board that changes course every time there's a new election in the governor's mansion. finally, the critics of my amendment have begun stirring up the masses by saying this single-handedly stops federal funding for any transportation project in the area. even up to $2 billion, by 2021. but in the past, when other m.p. ompleveas come into compliance, it hasn't had this effect. it simply hasn't happened. besides, the congressional intent is that any m.p.o. whose structure changed in order to adhere to federal law will be given a transition period.
3:43 pm
a very generous one. the point is, this amendment does not put in jeopardy any current or future federal investments in grants. in fact, my colleagues and i from minnesota have been working with the d.o.t. to make certain our region gets the federal support we need. but it is vital and it has been vital for years in our region that we determine our own governance structure. that the local elected officials have a say. if the twins cities and metropolitan council thinks it would take too large an effort to find common ground in order to pursue an m.p.o. that has elected officials, then that's the best indication that there is a serious problem with the status quo. it is time to give citizens power over their regional government. i urge you all to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. larsen: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to
3:44 pm
oppose amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. i understand the concerns that he has with his local m.p.o. we all face our own challenges with local m.p.o.'s. but they are an important decision making body that ensures local governments can take full advantage of federal transportation programs in a coordinated manner. this amendment is attempting to break apart the operating structure of a local m.p.o. seemingly to punish it. it does not achieve the outcome the gentleman is hoping to achieve, except to create government dysfunction. i would also note that some frequently argue that local decisions should be made by local decision makers. they say keep the federal government out of our business. except this amendment declares if the decisions are not made to the liking of one federal official, he can step in and blow up that local decision making body. mr. chairman, i'm urging my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
3:45 pm
time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. lewis: i yield to the chairman for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. lewis. i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. the metropolitan planning organizations were created to ensure local officials drive decisions about how federal highway and transit funds are spent. unfortunately for the gentleman's district, a loophole in the law undermines elected officials. the amendment ensures the structure of m.p.o.'s can be constructed by locally elected officials. i urge all members to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. larsen: of all the opposition in this body, they're already in compliance with what i'm proposing for the metropolitan council. clearly -- mr. lewis: of all the opposition in this body, they're flrd compliance with what i'm proposing for the metropolitan council. clearly there is no chaos. mr. larsen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
3:46 pm
back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the tchare -- of the chair the ayes have it, he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 78 printed in part a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 78 printed in part a of house report 115-650, offered by mr. la pins -- mr. lipinski of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. lipinski: i yield myself
3:47 pm
such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lipinski: mr. chairman, i've had good news that the airlines have improved on various metrics over the past few years, customers are still facing frustration. according to the bureau of statistics, 283 flights were delayed due to circumstances within the airline's control an last year, even though bumpings were down, over -- were down, over 23,000 involuntarily denied boarding. when passengers are significantly delayed as a result of an event within an airline's control, it only makes sense that airlines be required to accommodate them better. we're in a competitive climate where passenger's expectation of rvice quality has declined significantly, airlines won't make these changes and that's why we need this commonsense amendment my amendment will require airlines to place the passenger who is delayed more than three hours onto a another
3:48 pm
airier if that's the quickest way to get the passenger to their destination. this would apply only to delays caused by an event within an air carrier's control as defined by the secretary of transportation. in order to make this easier for the airline, it will require all carriers to accept such rebookings for a reasonable fee. at one time this was a common practice. some airlines still have these agreements, called airline agreements with other airlines. some have in the past year creating new airlining agreements. but many airlines still fall short and some require passenger ask for this treatment in order to receive it. this amendment also requires airlines to ensure that passengers have access to essential needs such as medical care and restrooms, no matter when or where a delay occurs. it requires meal vouchers to be given in the event of delays longer than four hours and requires hotel accommodations
3:49 pm
during lengthy overnight delays that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. these measures would go a long way to improving airline passenger protection. in order to make sure that this is done in the best possible manner, the secretary of transportation will engage in a rule making process giving the airlines and flying public an opportunity to have input. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: the amendment is a reregulation of the airlines that was soundly defeated in the transportation committee. it would force airlines to interline which refers to greements with other airlines. most already have such agreements.
3:50 pm
forcing them into unwanted deals will cause unintended consequences. the problems caused by this amendment would be most acute in smaller communities that have few sflithes per day. h.r. 4 includes per pro visions requiring airlines to disclose to passengers what services will be offered to passengers. it contains a number of other measures that are widely supportedism thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue but i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i am prepared to close and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. shuster: i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from llinois is recognized. mr.ly spinsky: i yield such time as he may consume to mr. larson. mr. larson: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment
3:51 pm
offered by the gentleman. it's no doubt that time and time again the airlines have a lot of work to do in the rem of customer service. -- in the realm of customer service. airlines are no longer required to compete on the quality of services they provide to consumers yet the industry has become the world's most profitable cue to countless avens lair fees they charge to panels. mr. larsen: i believe more must be done to restore basic rights to passengers. however this takes a one-size-fits-all approach that ay be right for every airline. i think the committee should hold additional hearings and study these issues more thoroughly and i hope we can agree on that a recent lesson learned was with the department of transportation's tarmac delay rule. a rule of great intentions had several unintended consequences such as passengers being stranded overnight at diversion
3:52 pm
airports hundreds of miles from their destination. congress had to mitigate some of these issues in the 2003 extension. when we're prescriptionive on the customer service front we have to be sure we get it right. i want to thank mr. lipinski for offering this amendment and work with the committee to perfect it. i stand in opposition to it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank the ranking member larsen and -- for his comments. i thank chairman shuster for his work on this bill. there are some good provisions, many good provisions in this bill, one that has to do with disclosure. but it still does not give the flying public enough protections. that's why we need this amendment. this amendment has been endorsed by the consumers union, travelers united, the consumer federation of america, and
3:53 pm
flyers rights. we expect when we buy tickets on an airline that we'll get there as quickly as possible if something is -- if it's something in control of the airline i think we should expect to be put on another airline to get to our destination as quickly as possible. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. shuster: i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lipinski: 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 illinois will be postponed.
3:54 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 79 printed in part a of house report 115-650. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 79 prinned in part a of house report 115-650, offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 839, the gentleman from california, mr. denham, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. real quickly, let me explain what the f-4-a or denham amendment does. it clarifies the intent of the 1994 f.a.a. bill, thousands how it got its name, the f-4-a. it was created one federal regulatory, one standard for meal and rest breaks for interstate freight and passenger
3:55 pm
motor carriers. this is origin family in the f.a.a. bill of 1994. it also include peace rate. we passed this from several times from the house to the senate. a very good bipartisan bill. but while we've had great bipartisanship in the past, to create -- to create greater bipartisanship and to work with labor, we actually took out the piece rate issue. now this bill only deals with meal and rest. the same as that piece of it that was in 1994 where congress, where this body reported out saying state economic regulation of motor carrier operators causes significant inefficiencies, increased cost, reduction of competition, and curtails the expansion of markets. this is about interstate commerce. making sure that you can drive a truck trpsing goods from one staid to another without having
3:56 pm
challenges going from a patch work of states across the entire country. we want these professional drivers to be safe meaning if you get tired, take a break. what we dent want to do is say, at two hour you need to pull over immediately. on the bridge, on the highway, wherever you're at, creating an unsafe condition. stop at the rest stop. stop at the truck stop. stop when it's convenient, when it's safe, and when you're tired. we want to give these professional drivers the flexibility in interstate commerce. that was 1994, that was the lufe the land until the u.s. supreme court, the appeals court, the ninth circuit reconvened and changed some motor carrier laws. the amendment and the federal standard only apply to interstate. what you do in your own state is up to your state but interstate, going across state lines, which the constitution enew
3:57 pm
mexicolated -- enumerated to the federal government in article 1, section 8, clause 306 the commerce clause, interstate hours of service regulations continue to be regulated by the state bus this has already been proven by the u.s. d.o.t. that this is the safest way for interstate commerce. with that, i'd like to yield the gentleman from california, mr. costa, 90 seconds. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: i rise today in support of this amendment offered by mr. denham and mr. cuellar and myself. trucking companies and truck drivers are the backbone of our nation in terms of transportation and certainly much of the san joaquin valley i represent. agricultural products, fruits, nuts, fredgetabbles, on america's dinner table every night are grown in the san joaquin valley. and they provide an important
3:58 pm
part of our sustenance. many of these truckers have one or two trucks. and they are literally small business people. sadly because of the recent court decisions that was noted by the author of this amendment, these companies that operate across state lines have been exposed to unfair litigation. it's been costly and i know of cases where major carriers, motor carriers, excuse me, have gone out of business because of this. the amendment would clarify that when operating across state lines, meals and rest breaks requirements would be governed by federal law not a patchwork of conflicting state law, that just makes sense. this is consistent with action taken by the congress as was noted in 1994 to provide uniform rules across the country for safety purposes. some of my colleagues raised the opposition saying this amendment would overturn protections like minimum wage and vacation. this amendment in no way impacts minimum wage, our vacation or those issues that have been raise in that fashion.
3:59 pm
it's simply not true. this is an amendment i believe is pro-safety, pro worker and pro economy. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. but the fact is, we've been dealing with this issue for a number of years. it's time that we finally avoid the confusion and straighten this measure out. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself two minutes. i offered a narrow fix for this in what was true interstate commerce because of the otential con fusion -- mr. defazio: i yield myself two minutes. i offered a narrow fix for this in what was a true interstate commerce. this is
93 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on