Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for their leadership in trying to bring this measure together and to the floor.

This is a 4-year reauthorization, and it is very difficult. We have over 70 members on the full committee and over 40 members on the Subcommittee on Aviation, and the White House and all the various and sundry interests that want specific provisions in a reauthorization bill such as we have before us. But we have come together, and I am real proud of the work that the Members have done and the staff.

I will have a manager's amendment that incorporates some of the issues that we have agreed to on a bipartisan basis, and also pledge to work with all interests and sides on various issues as we hopefully bring this measure to conference.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to the future of aviation in our country. It is also fitting and I think very appropriate that on the 100th anniversary of manned flight by the Wright brothers that we bring this rewrite of our Federal aviation policy before the Congress. No nation in the world relies more on the safe and efficient operation of aircraft than the United States.

Just think about it: Two-thirds of all the air passengers in the world take off from the United States each year and each day, from U.S. soil. Without a reliable air transportation system, communities would become stranded, families would be separated, time-sensitive cargo lost, and countless jobs and opportunities forsaken.

This bill, H.R. 2115, also referred to as Flight 100, addresses the many pressing needs of our aviation system. We know it has been through a great deal of turmoil since September 11. I believe it also provides good elements for its future.

This legislation keeps our promise to the flying public and builds on the landmark successes of its predecessor legislation, known as AIR-21. This legislation continues the guarantee that all the taxes and revenues paid into the Aviation Trust Fund are fully spent, and that airport improvements and air traffic control modernization that is so important is fully funded.

H.R. 2115 provides the funding necessary for the administration to operate air traffic control systems to the very highest standards of safety, and also allows us to modernize our outdated air traffic control system. It also increases the funding to airports to help build the capacity we need for future economic growth. This bill also makes much needed reforms to FAA's management structure by redefining the role of the chief operating officer.

I am pleased to see the administration within the last 24 hours has named that chief operating officer, and this legislation will clearly define the responsibilities of that position as it relates to the administrator of FAA.

It makes also, I think, a greater success of our Small Community Air Service Pilot Program, and it reforms the Essential Air Service Program to ensure that communities that need this service will continue to receive air service.

The bill streamlines the environmental review process for urgent airport capacity projects, and it does so without weakening any of the underlying environmental statutes or requirements. It also authorizes compensation to general aviation entities for losses resulting from security mandates. Again, they have not been reimbursed like the airlines or other entities that the Congress has previously provided for.

A lot of hard work has gone into this legislation, and I think we have worked diligently with the other side of the aisle to craft careful and meaningful compromises. The aviation industry in the United States is still the strongest in the world, and we must keep it that way. This legislation provides the stability and funding to ensure that we will continue to lead the aviation industry of the world.

This is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation, and I urge all of the Members to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a senior member of the Subcommittee on Aviation and immediate past Chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who is also a senior member of our Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), an outstanding new Member and also the vice chair of our subcommittee who is doing a great job.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), one of our most active members on our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who is a member of our subcommittee who represents probably the largest aviation manufacturing facility, and does it so well, in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the serious concerns that the gentleman from Kansas has raised relating to the repair manuals and other information that should be made available, and we will work with the gentleman to make sure that the concerns raised are addressed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the former lieutenant governor of the State of Montana.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue before the House, and I look forward to working with him to come to a fair solution to the problem raised by him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a former member of the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Nebraska that while we do not address in this particular legislative measure before us today security issues raised by the gentleman, they will be addressed in a separate piece of legislation that is now pending, consideration by leadership and homeland security. Certainly all of the issues that the gentleman raised have been raised by other Members, and we will try to right-size and correct some of the problems with TSA and aviation security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North

Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very knowledgeable member and a pilot who serves on our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

The gentleman has my assurances that this will be the case and that I will work with the gentleman to see that the appropriate changes are made in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased in the spirit of bipartisanship, the good spirit in which the legislation has been crafted together with both sides of the aisle, to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and particularly the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their leadership in putting this legislation together. There are a number of difficult issues. I particularly again want to reiterate thanks to the staff who have worked long and hard to bring this measure in rapid order before the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, this is a vital piece of legislation. I think all we have to do is look back on the events of September 11. If you took American aviation for granted, certainly that day was an awakening. Every day since September 11, we have struggled to get back on our feet. We have seen the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in our economy as a result of damage done not only by the events of September 11 but the struggling difficulties of our major air carriers. We take aviation for granted in this United States. It has provided a magic carpet, a way of life unknown by any people who have ever walked the face of this Earth, but it has become a part of the very fabric of our society. This legislation will set our policy for the next 4 years as far as aviation, so it is very important.

We heard from the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia how a closedown in just general aviation has affected the Nation's capital and the areas they represent. We cannot have that anywhere. We are willing to work with them and work with all to make certain that we restore this vital industry, that we restore jobs and that we protect a way of life for the American people. That is, to travel again in a manner in which only we can think about today and only 100 years ago the Wright brothers could dream about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support of it.

I think we need to do everything possible to protect the intent of our Buy America requirements, and I think the gentleman's amendment does exactly that. In the aviation industry, unfortunately, we are facing tremendous loss in jobs, employment, and manufacturing. We have lost about half of the large aircraft manufacturing, we produce no regional jets in the United States, and I think the very least we can do is have a Buy America provision that has teeth, that has provisions that will ensure that our manufactured goods are respected by the mandates set down by Congress to Buy America. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes some relatively modest changes to the legislation before us. Most of the changes are technical in nature and address issues that were raised after the committee approved the legislation in May.

One significant change is the provision relating to crew training, and I want to elaborate a bit on that. Our current law provides and requires that airlines provide hands-on self-defense training to flight attendants to help them deal with a terrorist threat.

The amendment that we have makes clear that this training is voluntary and that flight attendants who choose to take it will do so on their own time. The airlines will not be required to pay

them while they are taking this training. The Transportation Security Administration, not the airlines, will be providing the training. Both the flight attendants and airlines have agreed to this particular provision.

The airlines will still have to provide other nonphysical security training for flight attendants. Airlines provide that training now, and under this bill they could continue to provide the same training.

The amendment requires TSA to set minimum standards for flight attendant training, but deletes the provision in current law requiring the Transportation Security Administration to set the minimum number of hours for this particular type of training. Rather, the Transportation Security Administration should set proficiency standards and leave it to the airlines as to how many hours of training it will take to reach that level of proficiency.

In addition to the crew training provision, this amendment makes a number of improvements to the bill. These improvements include the following:

First, allowing the Department of Transportation to request information from the Department of Homeland Security in preparing its monthly report on passenger complaints about screening.

Next, directing the FAA to publish its policy on the use of passenger facility charge revenue for ground access projects.

Allowing 76-seat regional jets to qualify for the commuter aircraft slots for Reagan National Airport.

Additionally, allowing DOT to increase the subsidy to a commuter serving a small community if that commuter is experiencing significantly increased costs.

Another provision is allowing an airline to begin service to a small community that previously had subsidized essential air service without being subject to the many regulatory requirements of the Essential Air Service program.

An additional provision is revising the provision requiring aircraft manufacturers to make maintenance manuals available to aircraft repair stations in order to accommodate concerns expressed by the manufacturers.

Also we have a provision directing GAO to study how airlines were compensated after 9-11, especially whether they should be compensated for the devaluation of their aircraft.

A further provision directs FAA to study whether certain aircraft operations in Alaska can be performed under part 91 of FAA rules.

An additional provision allows current or former military airports designated by FAA to use AIP money for the reimbursement of a hangar.

Another provision allows up to 12 large airports to use AIP money for interest payments on debts. Small airports can already do this.

Another provision requires large airports seeking to build a runway to make their master plan available to the metropolitan planning organization in the area where the airport is located.

Finally, we have a provision directing DOT to report on whether it is appropriate and necessary for the airport in the Marshall Islands to receive grants under the Airport Improvement Program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good, bipartisan amendment. We have taken into consideration concerns and requests from many Members, and I believe that this manager's amendment improves on an already good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again I urge passage of the manager's amendment. I think we have attempted our level best to accommodate a number of requests from Members, particularly since the legislation was passed out of committee. I think the best amendments with the best possible language and compromises that could be worked out have been incorporated into this manager's amendment. We still will work with others as the legislation moves forward with conference.

Again, I urge the adoption of this comprehensive manager's amendment that is also a bipartisan piece of work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions about this amendment. I think we are going to probably acquiesce to the amendment, but Ronald Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport are unique airports. They are the only federally owned commercial passenger airports in the country. They were federally chartered and

are not subject to the oversight, as I understand it, of the Governor of Virginia.

This amendment gives the Secretary of Transportation permanent authority to provide grants to the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority. By doing so, it removes in some ways, Congress' responsibility and ability to make periodic reviews of the airport authority's operations.

This is a unique situation. We owe it to our Nation's taxpayers to fulfill our oversight responsibilities, and sometimes Congress needs to be reminded legislatively to do so. This amendment will change that dramatically.

I have great reservations about this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has an opposing opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from some outstanding Members of Congress who represent the greater Washington area and the Northern Virginia area. They have been strong advocates for Ronald Reagan National Airport. They have done a great job in looking after that national asset.

It truly is unique. It is the only airport, that and Dulles, that are owned by the Federal Government. This is a protection for the taxpayers, and it is good to have required periodic review and oversight.

I do have questions about the amendment, but I do believe that they have the support to pass the amendment, so I express that concern.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, I have some reservations and I think I have the responsibility as Chair of the subcommittee to raise those reservations about the amendment.

It is being put forth by three outstanding Members with very good intentions. They represent rural airports and are concerned about service and the contribution. Let me say, though, that this program goes back to 1970, late 1970s when we deregulated the airlines; and each year subsequently some of these communities have gotten this subsidization of service and some should use it, maybe some should not.

The nature of the aviation industry has changed dramatically, and service has changed dramatically around the country. And we are looking for ways to enhance that service, particularly to the small community. And you can find no stronger advocate than me in that regard.

The administration had proposed a 25 percent match; and as a compromise, we lowered that to some 10 percent. We also have a provision in here for a waiver for hardship cases. We do believe that some review is necessary and that there should not be an automatic disbursement from Washington without some equal match. And also I might add for the record that we have increased the authorization from some $65 million to $115 million. So I have concern about this.

My concern also is that in the long run we will have less money. We may have appropriators who may just take a pen and slash through the program, and we can possibly see harm done to a program that we all want to assist. So it is a good program.

I have concern about the amendment. I think that we are going to let this amendment pass and then hopefully it will be considered in conference. But I wanted to raise those points that I think are in the best interest of the essential air service for all of our smaller communities.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns. We are willing to work with those who have offered this amendment today. We do not want to do harm when we want to do good, particularly in providing essential air service to our smaller communities. So with those concerns raised, this probably will pass, but I did want to state my concern for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to conclude both the debate on the amendment and more than likely the debate on this legislation. I thank everyone for their cooperation. This truly does show how legislation can be drafted in a bipartisan manner, and it shows too with the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Pitts) amendment, which I rise in support of, that all the good ideas just do not come from the committee.

He has a good idea. It will improve this bill. It shows the majesty of the system our Founding Fathers created, and this working today does demonstrate good legislation.

I rise in support again of the Pitts amendment and the bill, the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, today we consider the bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in the best tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked long and hard to produce a sensible bipartisan bill, and they should be commended.

I also want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for including an important provision that will benefit smaller airports like the one I represent in Worcester, Massachusetts.

This provision will allow airports like Worcester, known as primary airports, to continue to receive Air Improvement Program Entitlement Funding, or AIP, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 based on prior year emplanement levels. It specifically grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to maintain current AIP funding levels for primary airports based on a discrete set of criteria related to the dramatic reduction in commercial air service since September 11.

AIP entitlement is a critical source and oftentimes the only source of funding for capital improvements at these airports. These airports rely on AIP funding to make a number of upgrades which now also include necessary, but costly, safety enhancements. In Worcester's case, this bill could mean the difference between receiving more than $1 million a year annually or $150,000.

This is an important provision, and I thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its inclusion.

If only the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could act in a bipartisan way, because although I support the FAA bill, for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Republicans will not let us consider the child tax credit.

For a second straight week, the leadership is playing a nasty game with millions of hardworking American families. Two weeks ago, the President, Vice President, and the Republican leaders deliberately left 12 million families, including hundreds of thousands of military families, out in the cold by deleting the child tax credit extension from the recently passed tax cut.

We just fought a war in Iraq; we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And instead of a warm thank you, the Republican leadership gives our troops the cold shoulder. The average base pay of a serviceman in Iraq is about $16,000; but according to the Republicans, that soldier's family does not need any tax relief because they are not subject to Federal income tax.

This is wrong. These families work hard and they pay taxes. They pay sales taxes and payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes and property taxes, most of which are going up because of the policies of this administration; but according to the Republican leadership, giving them a small tax credit would be welfare. How insulting.

My colleagues want to talk about welfare, well, let us do that. Enron paid no income taxes at all in 4 of the past 5 years, despite $1.8 billion in profits. Enron's taxes over 5 years were a negative $381 million, and its corporate tax welfare totaled $1 billion.

WorldCom paid no taxes at all in 2 of the last 3 years, despite $15.2 billion in profits before going bankrupt. WorldCom's total tax rate over the 3 years was only 1.6 percent. Corporate tax welfare slashed WorldCom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past 5 years.

All the while these corporations are not paying taxes, other companies are relocating to the Caribbean to avoid paying them altogether.

These corporate robber barons have saved billions and billions of dollars through loopholes supported by the Republican majority, and yet those same Republicans say that providing a hardworking American family a few hundred extra dollars is bad policy.

The Republican policies are crystal clear, Mr. Speaker; and they are wrong.

Last week, in this Chamber, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip, challenged the Republicans to defend their actions. Their response? Dead silence. Yesterday, President Bush and his staff, at long last bowing to public demand, implored House Republicans to take up and pass the child tax credit passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the other body. That bill is targeted, it is sensible, and very importantly, it is paid for by other offsets.

But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, still refuses to bring this bill to the floor. Last week, the majority leader said there are more important priorities than tax relief for low- and middle-income families, and yesterday he brushed aside the White House request.

Instead, they are playing a game, pushing a much larger tax cut that will cost over $80 billion. They are betting that the other body will engage in a long, protracted debate over the House proposal because they know that the other body will not pass an $80 billion tax cut that is not paid for, and they are hoping that the whole issue will just go away.

Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because, as we have said over and over, we will not let it go away up till the Republican leadership in this House does the right thing and fixes the mistake that they made when they removed the child tax credit for millions of low-income and middle-income families.

So I say to the Republican leadership, are you really that cynical, are you really so consumed by the thrill of your own power that you refuse to do the right thing? Why can you not simply admit that it was wrong to drop these hardworking, tax-paying families from the tax bill and fix your mistake?

The answer may lie in an article in today's Washington Post. According to the article, the administration had no intention ever of implementing the child tax credit as approved by the other body. Treasury officials assumed

in May, weeks before the House and Senate met to work out the differences in the two tax bills, that the child tax credit would not become law; and now the White House claims to support it.

I insert this article in the Record at this point.

[From the Washington Post, June 11, 2003]

House GOP Responds to Senate Child Credit Bill

$82 billion plan offers breaks for military families

(By Juliet Eiperin)

For the second time in two weeks, House leaders are pushing

a sizable tax cut bill, seizing the debate over expanded

credits for parents of minor children to propose several new,

unrelated tax cuts.

House Republicans yesterday unveiled their $82 billion

plan, which features tax breaks for military families (and

for the estates of astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions). The proposal sets up a likely fight with the

Senate, which approved a more modest tax cut package last

week.

For several days, Republicans have been trying to quell

protests over the fact that the tax cut enacted last month

excluded 6.5 million poor families from receiving a credit of

as much as $1,000 per child. The Senate reacted swiftly,

passing a $10 billion bill last week that would give the

expanded child credit (now $600) to families making from

$10,500 to $26,625 a year.

House Republicans rejected that approach yesterday, saying

they wanted a broader bill that would extend the child credit

and other tax breaks through 2010.

``We've not in the business of politics, but rather in

policy,'' said Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-

Calif.), noting that the expanded child tax credit phases out

in 2005 under the existing law. ``If these people need help

between now and the election [of 2004], they need it for the

rest of the decade.''

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters

yesterday that passing a bill dealing only with the child

credit ``ain't going to happen,'' because GOP leaders prefer

a broader package that ``provides tax relief, creates jobs

and [helps] the economy grow.''

The House proposal would provide a $1,000 per-child credit

for families from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2010. The credit now

begins to phase out when married couples make $110,000 or

more. House GOP leaders would raise start of the phaseout to

$150,000.

Their plan also would help military families, giving them a

tax break on home sales, death benefits and dependent-care

assistance. It would suspend the tax-exempt status of

designated terrorist organizations and provide income and

estate tax relief for astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions, including those in the Columbia disaster.

The House is poised to pass the plan Thursday. Its

prospects in a conference with the Senate are unclear. The

Senate bill's costs are offset by higher Customs Service

fees, adding nothing to the deficit. The House plan includes

no such offsets, which could cause problems with Senate

Democrats and some moderate Republicans.

``I philosophically support the House Ways and Means

Committee proposal, ``Senate Finance Committee Chairman

Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, but ``I don't

know if there are enough Senate votes to pass it.''

Treasury officials informed Senate aides yesterday that the

government will not be able to mail child credit checks to

low-income families for 8 to 10 weeks. Administration

officials assumed in May that the Senate child credit

proposals would not become law, according to a Senate

Democratic aide who met with Treasury officials.

The American people are smart. They can see through all the politics. They want Congress to fix the child tax credit, and they deserve action.

Mr. Speaker, the other body has already acted. We can solve this problem by taking up the bill right now. With quick action, we can send this bill to the President; and he can keep his word and sign it by the end of this week.

That is why, at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and should the previous question be defeated, I will bring up the Senate-passed child tax credit so we can send it to the President immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the difference in philosophies here, and I think that my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, in Congress Daily said it best. Speaking for the Republicans, she said: ``We have a philosophical difference. I look at it and other Republican Study Committee members feel if we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's welfare.''

I profoundly disagree with her characterization of these hardworking citizens who do pay taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and other taxes, as somehow not contributing to our tax base. As a prominent member of my party in the other body said, and let me quote her, We are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of firefighters and teachers and other hardworking Americans. I don't think of them or view them as welfare recipients. I don't think that they think of themselves that way. These are taxpayers. These are essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children, those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. They are hardworking families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They have payroll taxes that come out of their checks.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about, whether or not these people deserve to benefit from this tax cut that was passed only a few weeks ago in this House or whether or not they should be excluded. Those on our side of the aisle and a lot of moderate Republicans in the other body believe that these people should not have been deleted from the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just to make clear the point that this is not a partisan issue throughout the country. Unfortunately it has become a partisan issue here in the House of Representatives, but I want to refer to two quotes from some distinguished Members of the other body. One, a senior Republican from the other body representing the State of Iowa, when asked about this subject said, What's going to make them, meaning the House Republicans, accept it is whether or not they want this group of people, particularly people in the military who are sacrificing their freedom for our freedom, to get the same benefit everybody else is going to get who has children in their family.

What is really unfortunate is that by the inaction of the leadership in this House, it appears that the Republicans in the House do not want to help these military families and their children.

Another prominent Republican in the other body from the State of Maine said the base pay of a first year soldier is $16,000. Paramedics make an average of $22,000, and home health aides make an average of $18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our infrastructure, and they deserve tax relief too.

I could not agree more. People on this side of the aisle could not agree more. We have been fighting during these last several weeks to try to put back in the bill what the Republican leadership in the House removed from the bill in the dead of night, specifically this child tax credit for low-income workers, precisely because we understand the plight of these workers, and when we go back to our districts we hear from them when they say, you know, if you are going to give tax relief to people, we need it more than Donald Trump does, so why are you not helping us?

Again, there are prominent Members of the other body representing the Republican Party who get it, who are fighting to try to fix this problem right now; and yet here in this Chamber, in this House of Representatives, the leadership continues to try to find ways to deny these hard-working, taxpaying individuals, these families the benefit that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the underlying bill that we are considering here today is important. Aviation and the safety of our skies and the strength of our airports, all that is very, very important.

We are also trying to do here, so if anybody is listening they will understand, we are also trying to be able to, in addition to helping the aviation industry and helping our airports and helping protect our airports, we are also trying to help protect a lot of American families, 12 million families, to be exact, some of them military families where servicemen and servicewomen are serving our country in Iraq. We want to make sure that they can benefit from the child tax credit.

We cannot seem to get the leadership of this House to allow us to be able to vote on this issue, up or down. We are trying to advocate for millions of families in this country who not only need help, who deserve help.

So part of what we are doing on this bill and what we have been doing on previous bills is to try to highlight this issue, helping to persuade, and, if not persuade, maybe shame you into doing the right thing.

I guess I will ask the question that the distinguished minority whip asked last week during this debate. Why is it that we cannot get a vote up or down to reinsert the child tax credit that your leadership removed in the middle of the night?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate- passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill. This way we can send that bill immediately to the President's desk for his signature and start helping America's low- and modest-income families right away, right this second.

The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said this week that ``the President thinks at its core what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' I think we should give the President an opportunity to do just that.

H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard-working families, in contrast to the Republican/Bush tax bill. That bill does next to nothing to help those low- and moderate-income Americans who need relief the most. In fact, in a late night negotiating session behind closed doors, the Republican leadership deleted the one provision that would have helped these Americans, the refundable child tax credit. When it came to a choice of helping their rich contributors or Americans struggling to make a living, they chose the rich. They stripped out this tax break that would have helped the families of 8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans.

H.R. 1308, the bill amended and passed last week in the other body and sent back here, will give immediate help to working families by providing the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million additional children. These families would receive an average annual increase of $150 per child.

It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq by extending the child tax credit to many of them. It was suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that this break for our brave men and women in the military was nothing more than welfare. Well, I strongly disagree.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Previous Question for H. Res. 265--Rules on H.R. 2115 Flight 100--

Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

At the end of the resolution add the following:

``Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's

table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax

relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with

Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House

concur in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered

as pending without intervention of any point of order. The

Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.

The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question.''

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, of course rise in support of H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. It is appropriate that we apply that title to the bill in this year; it is the 100th anniversary of flight. When you think how far the world has come in aviation in just 100 years, it is really extraordinary. No other technology in the field of transportation can match the speed with which we have advanced the cause of aviation in this 100 years.

We have worked in a very diligent and bipartisan manner over many weeks and months; and I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, for the frequent and thorough and intensive conversations we have had to shape this legislation, come together in agreement on the many sticky issues that we had to confront in shaping this bill, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who has always been available and readily available to discuss and iron out the many complex issues.

I want to compliment the ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whose 18-plus years, 20 years of intensive work

in the field of aviation have paid off in his current position as the leader on our side on aviation issues. He has done a splendid job in shaping this legislation, which will put America on the course it needs to be to continue investment in our aviation airside infrastructure, in the modernization of the air traffic control system, and in ensuring we have the finest professionals in the world to manage that air traffic control system in the form of our air traffic controllers and those who support and maintain the technology of aviation.

Though emplanements dipped after September 11, they are on the rebound. We are seeing flights return to something approaching pre- September 11 numbers. Something like 71 percent load factors are returning, but yields are down. On average, they are down 4 cents to 5 cents per revenue passenger mile from what they ought to be to sustain the level of revenue we saw in the pre-September 11 era. But that, too, will come back. That will return as our economy gains in strength.

I know that the FAA is projecting over the next 6 years a return to 600-plus million passengers a year, and 696 million was the level we had prior to September 11. Now, when we think that in a world that emplaned 1 billion passengers in 2001, and 696 million of those were in the United States, it means that this Nation boards two-thirds of all the people who travel by air in the entire world.

So if we are to position ourselves to accommodate that growth in the future, then we have to make the investments now in the air side capacity of our airports. We have to prepare the taxiways, runways, and the air side improvements to accommodate that future growth so we will not be left behind, struggling, trying to catch up when it is too late and flights have rebounded.

In that respect, this bill provides $14.8 billion for the Airport Improvement Program funding. That is $1.2 billion more than the FAA's request. We have $12.3 billion for facilities and equipment over the life of this legislation, $200 million of which is specifically designated for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System, STARS, that handles 70 million airport operations a year throughout this country. That is a staggering amount and requires a vast capacity that this new system will provide.

We also maintain a level of funding to accommodate the air traffic controllers, $31.3 billion for FAA operations over the life of this legislation. We have done a good deal to accommodate the needs of small airports with essential air service improvements in this bill.

I recall so very vividly in 1978 sitting on this committee when we considered the deregulation of aviation. The question was raised whether we would have service to small communities. I offered the amendment for essential air service, with the concluding remark to the chairman of the Committee, that if we do not pass this amendment, there are towns in my district where the only way to get there will be to be born there, and I do not want to see that happen again. So we have done a good job with those issues.

Before concluding, I want to engage the chairman in a discussion. But I want to thank on our side the staff, Stacie Soumbeniotis, Giles Giovanazzi, Ward McCarragher, and, on the Republican side, David Schaffer, who have done superb professional work in crafting these extremely complicated provisions of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the bill does not go as far as I would have liked it to do in guaranteeing that our air traffic control system remains the safest in the world dealing with the privatization of air traffic controllers. It does not deal with the certification and related maintenance of equipment used by air traffic controllers.

So I think that we did not address this issue in the bill. I think we will come to that point in conference. I know the chairman is amenable to working towards a solution on this issue, and will work with us in conference to ensure that both controllers and air systems specialists are protected in the bill Congress sends to the President.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks. I am delighted that we will be able to work in conference to assure that both controllers and systems specialists remain Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) manage the balance of the bill in general debate on our side, including authority to yield time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her persistence and continuous leadership on this capacity issue, as well as many other transportation matters within the jurisdiction of our committee.

Resources for airport growth is an essential feature of this legislation. The gentlewoman has worked very hard and reminded the committee of these capacity requirements over the coming years. The bill specifically improves those funding measures substantially over even AIR 21 and previous legislation.

Five years ago, Congress provided only $1.9 billion for the airport improvement program (AIP). In AIR 21, we substantially increased AIP funding. Flight 100 builds upon the success of AIR 21 and continues to grow the program to meet anticipated capacity issues. In total, the bill provides $14.8 billion for AIR over 4 years, $1.2 billion more than the Administration's request. Airport development funding will grow from the current level of $3.4 billion to $4 billion in FY 2007. Moreover, these funds are guaranteed under flight 100.

With Flight 100, we will continue to make headway toward addressing our enormous airport development needs.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

I just want to raise a cautionary note, that in doing so we do not scare business away from the United States from foreign manufacturers. I am very strong on Buy America, I insist on it in the Federal aid highway program on steel, but there was a time in which 70 percent of the value and the parts of Airbus aircraft were manufactured in the United States.

As we got into the wars over agriculture with the European community, the Airbus consortium pulled back from its placing of business in the United States, and we have lost ground in the manufacturing of Airbus parts in the United States, and the same is occurring in other areas.

I just want to be sure in the process we are not scaring away business from the United States while legitimately protecting our own interests. I know the gentleman from Illinois has those concerns at heart.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the ranking member of the subcommittee. I would add that the manager's amendment does include two very important provisions offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to promote intermodalism.

The first requires airports that undertake major construction projects to share their planes with MPOs, and the second requires the FAA to clarify, consolidate, and publish its current policy for PFC for ground transportation projects that provide access to airports. These are long-standing issues that we attempted to deal with going back to the beginning of the PFC era in 1990, and this a very important clarification.

Just to expand on the point raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the flight attendants self-defense training provision will require carriers to provide all flight attendants with the basic security training program, and those who opt for more advanced training to do so under the auspices of the TSA.

There is a very interesting provision borrowed from our experience in the Federal Aid to Highway program that allows AIP funds to pay interest on debt incurred for AIP-eligible projects. We will expand under this manager's amendment that provision from select small airports to a very limited number of larger airports. I think that is indeed a very good measure that will accelerate development of airport capacity where we urgently need it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to work with us to include those provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, which would repeal a section of the law that requires the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) to obtain special legislation to be eligible to receive airport project grants and to impose passenger facility fees. No other airport is required to seek such congressional approval. While this procedure may have been justified in the early days of MWAA, it has outlived its usefulness.

Until 1986, the National and Dulles airports were run by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). When the airports were transferred to a regional authority in 1986, there were concerns that the regional authority would be unduly influenced by local interests, and not carry out federal objectives for the airports serving our Nation's Capital. To ensure that Federal concerns were considered, the 1986 legislation established Federal oversight over MWAA's activities, including Federal representation on its Board of Directors, special requirements in MWAA's lease agreement with the Department of Transportation, and requirements for audits of MWAA by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

In 1996, Congress further strengthened its oversight by requiring that new legislation would have to be passed for MWAA to be elible for AIP grants or PFCs, after October 1, 2001. The FAA reauthorization act of 2000, known as AIR-21, continued MWAA's eligibility, but required new legislation for eligibility after October 1, 2004. These provisions are unique to MWAA; no other airports operator has such restrictions on its eligibility for funding.

It is my understanding that although MWAA enjoys an excellent bond rating, the fact that they must continually come to Congress to receive grant monies or charge a PFC has caused concerns in the bond community. Continuing to place MWAA's funds in a different status from those of other airports could negatively affect its current high bond rating, resulting in higher interest charges, and possibly higher rents and fees at the airports.

I believe that MWAA has done an outstanding job in developing National and Dulles Airports, carrying out the objectives of the 1986 legislation. We no longer need to treat MWAA differently than all other airport authorities. The Federal directors on MWAA's Board, this Committee's continuing oversight, and GAO audits will ensure that Federal interest in the airports continue to be respected.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

We have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the full committee on this EAS program, and I talked about it in my remarks during general debate about how important it is for small communities, but I just want to make it clear that the committee really made significant effort here to protect EAS cities. And it should be noted that we expanded the program, a 10 percent local share for cities that are less than 170 miles from a large or medium-hub airport or less than 75 miles from a small-hub airport. And out of concern that small communities might not be able to pay that share, the chairman and the chairman of the full committee worked with us and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), to include a hardship provision, to allow the Secretary to waive that local share if the community is unable to pay and can demonstrate that inability to pay. So we did not ignore these needs.

We addressed them I think in a very appropriate and thoughtful fashion. I want that to be stated in concert with the chairman who expressed those concerns. And I think by increasing the funds we have made it a lot easier to get service to EAS airports.

Mr. Chairman, I would just take a moment to express my appreciation for the recognition by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) that it has been the Committee on Appropriations that has been the obstacle on EAS. It has been the Committee on Appropriations that has time and again put legislative limitations on the use of EAS funds.

Now, if we have an advocate over there in the Committee on Appropriations in the form of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), maybe we can get all of this straightened out and make sure that those dollars do flow. Because we can write the authorizations; but if the appropriations do not flow or if there are further limitations on it, then all this good work we do in our committee is undercut.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, which would clarify the measurement of highway mileage for purposes of determining essential air service (EAS) eligibility.

Under current law, communities are not eligible for the EAS subsidy if they are less than ``70 highway miles'' from the nearest large or medium hub airport. Congress first imposed this 70-mile standard in the FY1992 Transportation Appropriations Act, and renewed it every fiscal year until the FY2000 Appropriations Act, which made it a permanent restriction.

In AIR 21, Congress gave the Department discretionary authority ``to provide assistance with respect to a place that is located within 70 highway miles of a hub airport if the most commonly used highway route between the place and the hub airport exceeds 70 miles.'' Nevertheless, despite its discretionary authority, the Department generally employs the ``most direct route'' standard. This issue has created controversy and even litigation between local communities and the Department, including litigation that involves Lancaster Airport in the gentleman's district.

The gentleman's amendment would require the Department to use the ``most commonly used route standard'' in measuring mileage for EAS eligibility. Additionally, the amendment would require local input in determining the ``most commonly used highway route.'' Specifically, the amendment would require the Secretary of Transportation to consult with the Governor of the State in which the airport is located as to the most commonly used highway route between that airport and the nearest hub airport. Further, the amendment requires the Secretary to promulgate by regulation a consistent standard for calculating the most commonly used route.

It will bring into the EAS program deserving eligible communities that have otherwise been cut off arbitrarily by current law. This is a common sense change. If we are to have a mileage standard for EAS it should be based on the miles people will actually drive, not a theoretical route, which probably takes longer than the actual route. The gentleman's amendment will make the law reflect reality.

For these reasons, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and want to thank all the members of the committee and also particularly the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the subcommittee chairman, for the effort they and all our staff have put into this bill.

This is a good piece of work. It is a potential foundation for the second 100 years of the aviation industry in this country, an industry that contributes well in excess of 10 percent to our gross domestic product on an annual basis. It will begin to anticipate and invest in meeting the needs of the future.

There are a lot of folks that have seen the fall-off in air traffic, and they have forgotten the delays of 2 years ago and the capacity constraints of 2 years ago. But I have not and the members of the committee have not. It is going to require more investment, and there is significant investment in this bill over and above what was requested by the administration to begin to meet those capacity needs, in partnership with local communities and local airport authorities.

It also does include some environmental streamlining provisions which will not do violence to the National Environmental Policy Act, but will help move some of the bureaucratic impediments and sequential referrals and things that have gone on that have delayed unnecessarily projects that ultimately were found to have merit and to meet the environmental constraints and laws of the United States. We need to move some of these projects ahead more quickly, and this, I believe, will help facilitate that.

I am particularly happy with the air service section of the bill.

I represent what has become an underserved community because of the dominance of one major carrier who has chosen, despite the profitability of that market, to divest itself of service and substitute a substandard so-called express service.

There are many of us across the Midwest and the western United States and even in the East struggling with these sorts of issues. There are many communities that have no service whatsoever. So the improvements we are making in the essential air service authorization here are essential. The new pilot program that would allow other than the traditional essential air service program, which can sometimes be kind of lame, is to be undertaken by the Secretary. And, finally, the new section which I think is going to be the great benefit to airports like mine and other airports across the country that have seen a diminution in service is the Small Community Air Service Development program, which would, with language we have put in the bill, require and give preference to communities that are willing to partner with the government in terms of a contribution and also can demonstrate the potential sustainability of their plan. Not just a potential pilot program which essentially becomes another name for an EAS program, but something to encourage innovation, to attract in new carriers that could provide a permanent presence and a new competition and improvement in service to those communities. There are many of us that desire to facilitate that.

Also, being a west coast Member, the issue of Washington National Airport and the sort of outmoded restrictions we see there is also accommodated to some extent in the bill.

Flight attendants will get at least some small recognition for the vital service they provide the traveling public on a daily basis, where they are going to get a certificate when they have completed their training, which hopefully with the uncertainties in the industry, the bankruptcies and the layoffs, will give them some portability and viability perhaps to move to new jobs if they lose theirs or there are other problems.

We begin to anticipate the huge looming retirement of air traffic controllers with this bill and to require or authorize the hiring of replacements who have quite a long training window, and we need to move ahead with that so we do not have a crisis.

The cabin air-quality hearings which we had last week revealed that we are basically not monitoring cabin air quality; and where we do not monitor, we do not have a problem. But the few monitoring samples that have been done do show problems, and we are going to require studies that were called for by the National Academy of Sciences to be undertaken by the FAA.

Finally, the air traffic control system, there is no more successful model in the world of an efficient, well-operating, privatized air traffic control system. Those that do exist have had to be dramatically subsidized, reinvested in by the governments that went down that route. And when I recently met with the Chair of the committee of jurisdiction from the Parliament, she said, Do not go there. Look at the mistakes we made in Great Britain. And I am pleased to see the provisions in the bill that relate to that. All in all, Flight 100 is a great foundation over the next 4 years for the next 100 years of flight in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair as to the time available on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the other gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on his fierce advocacy on this issue and the fact that we are beginning to see some movement on the part of the Port Authority. It is astounding they have not undertaken such a study. I want to continue to work with the gentleman and the Chair and others to see that we begin to move ahead on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition but not to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think this is a very worthy undertaking. As the gentleman points out, we have hollowed out so much of American manufacturing capability, but we have for years touted the fact that our leadership in aviation and aerospace, that this would be one of the areas where we would continue to dominate the world. To have the prospect of agencies of the Federal Government using taxpayer resources to outsource to foreign vendors in this very critical sector, a sector which in the case of at least one major manufacturer is beleaguered by unfair foreign competition, in fact, something we heard repeated on a trip of the Subcommittee on Aviation for the engine manufacturers and others, where subsidies and development grants that never have to be paid back and all sorts of things are made available to them that are not made available to American manufacturers. I think the audit at this time is extraordinarily worthy. I really thank him for bringing this issue before the Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, despite the fact I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation has done good work with this. A number of Members have come forward since the bill was finalized in committee and raised concerns which have merit, as have other concerns been raised by outside groups, for instance, the flight attendants and others.

So we have here a clarification on the training of the flight attendants, which we mandated earlier, the security legislation. We have here language that would require at least some minimal cooperation and coordination with the metropolitan planning organizations, making certain that they are informed of plans and future plans of airports that might have impact on communities greater than that which currently exist.

To get some clarification, a number of concerns have been raised regarding passenger facility charges and the standards which are being applied by the FAA, and it certainly would be of great benefit to consolidate and publish those requirements so that meritorious projects across the United States can move forward to better enhance the utilization of our airports and their capacity.

Then there was the 76-C regional jet provision for National Airport, again something raised later on; fairly technical, but actually quite practical and meritorious.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically support the manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I could, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim a portion of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although, I do not intend to speak in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I actually rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I represent a State that has topography which is foreign to many of the bureaucrats inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway, as do other Members from even more challenging terrain in Alaska and elsewhere, and it is hard for them to conceive that what looks on a map as a pretty straightforward route might happen to be a route that is not open in the wintertime or, even if it is open some of the time in the wintertime, it is often impassable; that even in the best of times it is over a mountain range, even though it is the shortest distance.

So I think common sense certainly being applied as an antidote to bureaucratic intransigence in this case is very well merited, and I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. It is something I had missed in my perusal of the bill, and many others I know would be concerned for this. We thank him for his vigilance and the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of 2115, the Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides ample opportunity to discuss this important reauthorization before us today.

H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the promotion of safety in our skies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important provisions in the underlying legislation.

First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45 years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the development of new air space technologies.

Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest for

both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and Miami International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever- growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by these horrible acts are helped.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline vendors through the Department of Transportation.

This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11, and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.

H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of the committee by voice vote.

I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member.

Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we have.

But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in the area of aviation.

So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of political science who may have been watching this debate will have confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R. 2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that is what we are doing.

Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''

We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record tax increase on the American people.

Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of that.

So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are included in this very significant piece of legislation.

With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.