Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the points that have been raised on this particular rule. Having participated in the development of this legislation on this conference report, I am familiar with some of the details that I think we should, again, separate fact from fiction.

First of all, the conference did meet. I have a copy of the transcript of the conference. Let me say, first of all, in the development of the bill, I have heard comments about this not being a bipartisan effort. I can say that I have been in the Congress for 11 years. And I was in the minority, and I saw how things operated in an oppressed fashion, being part of the minority I said that would never happen when I was given the opportunity to be in a leadership position.

So I conducted more hearings on the reauthorization of AIR-21, FAA reauthorization, than we did on AIR-21's original hearings. And I have a list of all of the hearings that we conducted. I went into the home district of the ranking member and conducted a hearing. I can tell you with every single issue in this piece of legislation, the minority was consulted.

The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), just got up and told you that much of this legislation, in fact, is the work product of the minority. Opportunities I could not have dreamed of when I was in the minority.

So to say that somehow this has been unfairly conducted, or some opportunity not given, is not correct. It is not factual.

Then we get to the point of the conference. A conference was held and the major issue, there has only been one point of contention on this legislation from the beginning. That is the question of the contract towers. We held a hearing and we had an actual vote on the issue.

Here is the vote. Here is the transcript. Let me read: ``Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have referenced with respect to the language of air traffic control privatization and the air traffic control tower language.'' There was a vote and they lost.

We put in the provision 69 towers. It was done in an open meeting. They were given an opportunity for a vote. This is the vote.

Mr. Speaker at this point I will insert this into the Record.

Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the

purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have

referenced with respect to the language on air traffic

control privatization and the air traffic control tower

language.

Mr. Young. On the House side, all in favor, signify by

saying aye.

All opposed, signify by saying no.

The noes have it.

So this was done in fairness.

Now, I do not remember too many conference reports that have been filed and been out there. We filed this the July 24. The conference has been out there. And we would have taken this up the week that we left, but we did not have time on the floor.

And in the meantime, NATCA has spent, I am told, I do not know if this is accurate, but I am told $6 to $7 million in a campaign of disinformation to take this provision out. Now, what we have done is we won in an open conference, and now we have recommitted the bill and we have agreed to take out the objectionable provision. So we lost. We gave again to the side to take out the provision, and they still are not happy. They say they are not being treated fairly.

We had a vote, we had an open conference, and we have taken out the issue of contention. All the other issues, every issue, was debated, every issue was discussed in hearings. And I have copies of all the hearings. I would be glad to have them made part of the Record.

So, again, the question of unfairness is unfair. Let me say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who just spoke, and I have the greatest respect for the gentleman, the planes that landed September 11 that the FAA brought down, half the towers in the country, almost half the towers in the country, 219 are contract towers. They are supervised by the Federal Aviation Administration. They are managed by private contractors. So on September 11, those people performed well.

The issue of the 69 towers, the 69 towers we did not pick out of the vacuum, out of the sky to put in the bill to look at for possible conversion to contract towers. Those FAA towers were examined in the year 2000 by the Inspector General. Not by the CBO, not by some partisan group, but by the Inspector General.

The Inspector General looked at those towers. He compared them in 2000 and found that the all FAA towers had 2.5 times more safety errors than their counterparts, the contract towers. And the cost was substantially more.

This did not satisfy the union, so they asked for another restudy. So we asked for a restudy requested by NATCA. They reviewed it in 2002 and 2003. Here is the report. In the report they said you did not do the right comparison. You have to compare the flights, the number of flights, hours of operation. So they did that. And they just completed that. You know what? An even more exact comparison found, that there is five times the error rate in the FAA towers. So they are less safe. And they cost, look at it, the report, an average of 12 of them, $917,000 more to run.

So, we have taken out the provision that was objectionable to the other side, and they still are not happy. This reminds me of that song, the Hokie Pokie: You put your right foot in. What else can we do?

So we are here today, folks, to stop the Hokie Pokie. This is very serious because our aviation system depends on it. Our improvements of our airports depend on it, and that is in this legislation. The security improvements depend on it, and many of our airports are lacking those security improvements. They are being held up because this bill is not passing.

Essential air service to our small and rural communities, never before have we produced a piece of legislation that will do more to expand air service with an aviation system that now has been under such duress that we have nursed it back. This will do more of the job to create employments and opportunities for all Americans.

So the argument that we have not given a fair opportunity to the other side is bogus. The argument that is trying to be posed here today that we somehow did something in the dark, without consultation, here is the record. This is the record. We have been fair. We have been open. We have even acquiesced to their number one demand and to what the union has spent $7 million on in an unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion and misinformation, so we can move this legislation forward, so we can help our ailing aviation industry.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, again I urge my colleagues to pass the rule. We have tried to be fair in this process. I have tried to be fair. There is one issue. I mean we can talk about a host of other issues, and in this system of 435 Members, I have over 40 Members on the subcommittee. There are over 70 on the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We all know that we all do not get all of our ways.

We heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) give a very eloquent reminder of her contributions and our working together. This bill does represent 99.9 percent of us working together to solve issues and move our aviation industry forward.

It does boil down to, unfortunately, this one issue that has divided us. We have acquiesced to the other side. We did put in 69 towers out of the 71 towers identified.

The two from Alaska, and please do not pick on my chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), he represents an area that is just unbelievable. You have to go see Alaska to believe it. It takes 3\1/2\ hours by jet from one end of the State to the other. And the two towers that were named in this report, first of all, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has probably more contract towers than any 10 States put together, but the two that were mentioned in this, one is being converted to a capstone, that is the Juneau, Alaska, tower; and the other one, if you go and look at the Anchorage tower, it is quite unique. It has a combination of military, private sector, and FAA operations. So they really do not fit into this program. And that is why that was exempted. But what we have done here is we have taken out all 69.

Now, yes, I offered if anyone wanted to read this report that says that a contract tower which is FAA supervised and privately managed is 4\1/2\ times safer, really it has 4\1/2\ times less error than an all- FAA tower and it costs less. Heaven forbid in Congress we should deal with saving the taxpayer money and have something that is safer and costs less, like this report identifies. I suggested we give the other side the opportunity, but they do not want to do that. I said I will give that opportunity. If people want to do that, fine.

The conference participants really have decided what the issue was. There is one issue. Here is the record. So it has, in fact, boiled down to that. We have taken out the 69 towers from any potential of privatization. There is no mention of privatization in this bill. We gave them basically what they want, and they are still not happy. So, again, it boils down to a vote. We have to vote on this measure.

Again, the question of the executive order, President Clinton, for 7 years and 9 months practically, had the ability to look at any of these towers. He made some of them private with contract arrangements, and then he changed it. We know why he changed it, a huge amount of money, look at the record, you see what happens in campaigns and elections; and this President changed it back to where it was where President Clinton had it.

And this is the safest system. We have 219 contract towers in the United States. Almost half of the towers in the United States are contract towers, and they are safe. And they also helped in taking down the planes safely on September 11. So do not bash the current system.

That is what we are asking for, plus all the good things that we have

worked together on to make this a better piece of legislation for our country and our American aviation system.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 422 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 422 is a rule providing for consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2115, the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would briefly remind this Congress of the essential authorizations provided through this bill. First and foremost, the legislation reauthorizes the FAA for 4 years and $3.4 billion in fiscal 2004, increasing by $100 million each year thereafter. The FAA is, of course, primarily responsible for the safety of the Nation's skies through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the development of new airspace technologies.

The district that I am honored to represent contains Miami International Airport, consistently one of

the Nation's busiest, both for international and domestic travel. I am always impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between such organizations as the FAA and Miami International. This cooperation is evident, as well, through many provisions in this legislation, for example, $500 million for airport security improvements at airports; grants and tax credits for low emissions; compensation to general aviation for losses from security mandates; and war risk insurance to the airlines through March 30, 2008.

This Congress was quick to assist airlines after the tragedy of 9-11, and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movement of people and goods the airlines provide obviously demanded our attention. However, we must also consider those smaller aircraft which were restricted for months. Accordingly, this Congress will act through the underlying legislation to help general aviation return to financial stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their business. This bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators that were greatly affected by increased security restrictions.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for their extraordinary leadership on this important reauthorization, and I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

I certainly have not seen it all, but I am learning a lot this morning, hearing the debate. Approximately 150 towers were privatized during the Clinton years. This legislation does not mandate any privatization of towers, and yet trying to reconcile with this reality and these facts, what I am hearing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, in order to elicit some information and some facts about what the legislation is doing, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

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

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

I sympathize with my good friends on the other side of the aisle. When I arrived in this Congress along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) 11 years ago, I was in the minority, and I remember what it was not to have the votes, the majority of the votes to get one's ideas passed and to come into law. So I sympathize when now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have the majority of the votes, how they must feel, but I think it is important that some facts now be put on the record, Mr. Speaker.

This legislation before us mandates no privatization of towers. During the years of the Clinton Presidency, approximately 150 such towers were privatized. I do not recall my friends protesting, but this legislation, which obviously they are complaining about today, mandates no such privatization of towers, like we had 150 during the Clinton years.

Despite the fact that we on this side of the aisle have the majority of the votes, it is important to point out that in the writing of the bill and the original conference report, our friends on the other side of the aisle were intimately involved. Many provisions, in fact, were included in the bill at the request of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

For example, a special rule to maintain the minimum AIP entitlement at small airports that have lost passengers, I am told the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) came forth with that idea.

A sense of Congress on 5th freedom and 7th freedom flights, I believe the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) brought forth that idea.

An increase in the MPO participation in the airport planning process, I believe the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) had that idea.

Requirement to provide additional information to families affected by aircraft accidents, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had that idea.

Restriction on flights at Teterboro airport, I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) had that idea.

Flight attendant certification, deadline for issuance of Stage 4 noise reduction rule, curriculum standards for maintenance technicians, provision on foreign repair station security, all of these ideas came from our friends on the other side of the aisle.

So it is important for the facts to be known. There is frustration in being in the minority. I remember my first term here, but let us not negate the facts that in the fairness of the majority, many ideas of the minority were included. So I think that is required. I think that is required by democracy, respect for the minority, and we see in this legislation the fruits of much respect for the minority, but in addition to ideas that were brought forth by the minority, there are many ideas brought forth, I would say many more, by the majority that are very important to the safety of aviation in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we must pass this legislation today.

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

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

Just to reiterate, we reiterate some facts that I attempted to bring out before. First of all, with regard to the towers privatized, airports privatized, during the Clinton administration, about 100 of them were former FAA staffed towers. I reiterate again, that in the legislation brought forth today, there is mandated no privatization of towers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 422, I call up the conference report on 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. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Speaker, the House, as I recall, just passed on a vote of 220 to 199 a rule by which this legislation would be considered before the House of Representatives. In that rule, there was clearly a provision that waived all points of order, which also would negate the previous standing rule of the House for specific meeting.

I might say also, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the rule I did cite the sequence of events in which the conference did meet and in which full participation was permitted, and specifically cited a rule on the particular issue that has raised so much controversy here. We did acquiesce to the minority's request to pull that provision, and that was the reason it was handled in that fashion.

So, again, based on the passage of the rule, the provisions of the rule and the adoption of the rule subsequently by the House of Representatives, I think that you will find the gentleman's point of order out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, we finally come to the conference report on H.R. 2115, the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. It has been a struggle to get here, but I believe it is critical to the success of aviation that we complete our mission, particularly on this 100th anniversary of the first flight in the United States by the Wright Brothers.

I want to take this time as we finish this conference report and this legislation to commend the Members of the minority. My ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), has been an outstanding leader on transportation issues in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I have been honored to have him as a subcommittee ranking member. He has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to craft what I consider to be an excellent piece of legislation.

During the rule debate, it was cited how many provisions were added by the Members of the minority, and I compliment the Members of the minority for their contributions to this well-crafted piece of legislation.

Also, I want to take time to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman is one of the most knowledgeable people on transportation issues. When I came to the Congress in 1993, he chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation. I have learned a great deal under his stewardship. He is also a font of historical institutional knowledge, both to the subcommittee and also to the committee, and has contributed greatly to the text of this measure.

Now, this is a sizable measure and there are, again, some 70-plus Members on here, and there are some issues where folks did not get their entire provision included in this bill. It is difficult when you have such a diverse committee, and subcommittee of over 40 members, to please everyone and put every provision in possible. But, for the most part, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, crafted in a bipartisan spirit, in the tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

This past week I attended the funeral ceremony of my former boss, William C. Cramer. He was the first Republican Member of Congress to represent Florida since the postreconstruction period, and I always looked up to him as ``Mr. Public Works.'' He added tremendously to the bipartisan working relationship that has continued, even when he was the only Republican from the State of Florida. I am pleased now, we have 18 out of 25 Republican Members from Florida. I appreciate his contributions. I also appreciate those of the minority in crafting this.

Now, one would have to live on another planet to not know that there has been controversy over one primary issue, and that is the issue of privatization. We did include initially in this legislation a provision that did allow this President to look at some 69 specified VFR fully FAA-staffed towers and possibly consider them for future privatization or conversion to contract towers.

After some 3 months. Since this past July 24, I believe, we filed the report and the conference met, and we did agree to take that provision out. We did not have a formal meeting of the conference committee. We knew after months of conflict that the issue was tearing us apart.

But now we have taken that out, and we are in a situation where we have a piece of legislation, and this conference report, that is totally, completely silent on the issue of privatization. And now we are prepared hopefully to go beyond that, because this bill has many important provisions that we need.

First of all, this measure aids in restoring jobs and opportunities in the American aviation industry.

We all know how hard hit this industry has been since the effects of the horrible day of September 11. No industry has lost more jobs. We talk about the loss of 2.7 million jobs in the economy; I would venture to say that at least 1 million are related either directly or indirectly to aviation. And it is slowly coming back, and this bill will aid it in coming back. So this will help us in creating jobs and opportunities for people in one of our most dynamic industries in this country.

Finally, there are several other points that I would like to make about this legislation. It does release the money for aviation trust funds to pay for airport improvements. All across this country, airports are beginning to again rebuild the passenger traffic, to rebuild; we can almost feel some of the economy coming back. If we do not pass this, those improvements come to a halt, not only for improving the airports and the infrastructure, but also for security improvements that are so important. We have provided in this bill to again assist our airports with that important mission.

So there are a whole host of areas where this is beneficial to the whole country. I urge the passage of this conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down. Just when I think I have seen everything, the Republican leadership comes up with a new surprise. We are seeing appropriation bills that no one can amend. We have seen huge multibillion dollar omnibus spending bills being written in secret and shoved through the House. We have seen twisted arms and broken promises. But tomorrow is Halloween and the leadership has come up with a brand-new trick: the invisible conference committee.

As everyone knows, just 2 days ago, the Republican leadership, after nearly 5 weeks of delay, finally brought up a rule to send the seriously flawed FAA conference report back to the conference committee. The House, in a bipartisan way, approved that rule, with the hope that the flaws in this bill could be fixed and we could reauthorize important aviation and safety programs. Instead, the invisible conference committee did not hold a single public meeting, a violation of House rules, and did not give Democratic members any opportunity for input or amendment. In fact, Democratic members of the conference were never even notified that a conference was taking place, and they were never notified that a new report was ready until after this new conference report was filed.

Now, I do not even know if Republican members of the conference committee met, or if some leadership aide or some lobbyist changed the bill himself on the back of a napkin.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous.

When we shared our concerns with the chairman of the Committee on Rules last night, he told us that he understood where we were coming from and that he would talk to his leadership about it. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to feel our pain. What we are looking for is fairness. Last night, the Committee on Rules Republicans could have stood with Democrats and demanded that the House rules and procedures be respected. They had their chance to make their actions match their rhetoric. But sadly, they chose, once again, to follow their leaders, rather than follow the rules.

Again, this is not an isolated incident; this is part of a continuing pattern of disregard for the rules of this House, disregard for other points of view, disregard for open debate, disregard for bipartisanship, and disregard for the American people.

As I have said before, I understand that the majority has the responsibility to manage the House and that the Committee on Rules can be a tool in that effort. But under this Republican leadership, the Committee on Rules has become not a tool, but a weapon, a weapon used to smother, stifle, and suppress; a weapon used to cover up bad behavior and undermine the democratic process.

These matters, Mr. Speaker, are not just ``inside baseball.'' They are matters that directly impact the American people. In this case, the conference report for the FAA bill does not just directly contradict the expressed bipartisan will of both the House and the Senate; it also jeopardizes the safety of the people we represent.

The bill still allows for the privatization of air traffic control, despite the fact that both the House and the Senate voted to prohibit privatization. If this provision becomes law, it will begin the dismantling of the air traffic control system as we know it.

We cannot allow our air traffic control system to be farmed out to the lowest bidder. Safety must come first, and we cannot do it on the cheap.

A while back, some Republican Members claimed that they opposed privatization so strongly that they pledged to vote against the conference report. I hope they follow through with that promise today.

And the bill, Mr. Speaker, still changes antiterrorism training for flight crews from mandatory to discretionary. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 directed the Transportation Security Administration to issue security training guidelines for flight crews. Section 603 of the FAA conference report guts this directive in order to give air carriers the authority to establish those training requirements at their discretion. The TSA has developed the training for Federal flight deck officers and the Federal air marshals. It only makes sense that the TSA should be responsible for developing the antiterrorism training for flight attendants so that there is a coordinated response from the entire flight crew in the event of a terrorist attack. To do anything less, Mr. Speaker, is to place special interests above passenger safety, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the way the people's House is supposed to run. What has happened with this conference report is an outrage and an insult, not only to Members of both parties, but to the people we represent. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the committee.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is also a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, surely the gentleman from Florida speaks about a supposititious meeting and a supposititious participation, because none such existed.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman to explain what he meant by ``full participation.''

I cannot yield. I thank the Speaker.

That is the point; there was no such meeting. That, I find extraordinary. In the 40 years that I have served on the Committee on Public Works, now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I started on that committee as a clerk on the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors in January of 1963, I followed every one of our conferences. I have served on conferences for 24 years. Never have we failed to have meetings, except in a very few instances when a bill was conferenced without formal meeting of conferees, for which I reference the Aviation Noise Act of 1990, in which case the Senate, the other body, failed to call a meeting of conferees, but we did meet. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, was the ranking Republican on the subcommittee I chaired at that time, and I included him in every meeting.

We did not have that courtesy extended to us. The rules of the House clearly were violated, to say the worst; avoided, to say the best. And I will compliment the Chair of the Committee on Rules. Last night when I raised this point, he, too, was shocked and offended and said that he would take this matter up with leadership and see that it does not happen again.

But the gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that is sustained by the rules of the House, and I support the gentleman's call for a ruling by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

I appreciate the very thoughtful comments of the gentleman from Florida about my service during the time I was the Chair of the subcommittee. We have had a very constructive, generally, relationship between the majority and the minority, both prior to the Republican majority and subsequent to it. Generally, on the Subcommittee on

Aviation, this has been perhaps the most constructive area of work on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over the past 9 years.

But we have really run aground here on this issue. Had we actually had a conference and had a full, thorough discussion and debate the first time around, and had we been able to discuss the four principal issues. I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, there are many other matters of great importance: funding of the air traffic control system, F&E account, the operations account, the research and development account. All of those are important, and there are other important measures.

But, there are four items on which we should have had a full discussion. And if we had and if we had been able to negotiate back and forth, some give and take, maybe we would win some of it and maybe the other side would win some of it. And this is not Democrat or Republican side. There are ideological differences on this matter; and if it came out this way after full and thorough discussion, we came out with the package now before us, it would have been a different arena. We did not have that discussion. We had it only for the few minutes during the first conference. After the conference report was recommitted, we had no meeting; we had no discussion. I appreciate the gentleman's comments that the minority asked to drop the language. I do not know who was consulted. We never had that conversation, either formally or informally. What we wanted was a discussion of options, of opportunities.

The gentleman from Florida has several times referenced the report of the Inspector General of DOT. Now, the actual statements of the Inspector General I quote: ``In addition to limitations on evaluating the rating of contract towers performance,'' he said, ``and due to the low number of operational errors at both places,'' that is both contract and FAA, ``I would caution you against concluding that either group has a safer safety record than the other. It is just not fair to draw that conclusion.''

The Inspector General's report goes on to show that, or the gentleman says that the IG's report says, the contract towers are two times safer than FAA towers. The IG specifically cautioned against this interpretation of the study.

So I asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate the IG report, and that is what the General Accounting Office came back and said: ``We identified several potential limitations with FAA's data on operational errors based on our review of GAO and DOT reports and application of best methodological practices. Due to the way data are recorded, the severity of many errors cannot be determined or is misleading. Further, comparisons of operational errors among types of air traffic control facilities such as FAA staff versus contractor staff cannot be used alone to provide valid conclusions about safety, due to three factors we identified based on standards of methodological practices and our understanding of FAA's data. The determination,'' quoting further, ``of real differences in the rate of operational errors is difficult, and comparisons of operational error rates alone are not sufficient to draw conclusions.''

The point is, there has never been a thorough, full discussion of this issue. We should have that. We should have had an extended hearing on the subject matter. We should have had a discussion of what policy this administration plans to bring to the privatization of air traffic control facilities. We have not had it.

When the Clinton administration came up with this idea in 1993, I vigorously opposed it, with great support from our colleagues across the aisle; and we sent them in full flight retreat on this subject. We ought to do the same. We ought to join forces today to do the same, to put this issue in full flight retreat.

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

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