Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2881) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, to improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

All of us who are frequent travelers as we go back and forth to our districts know the strain that is on our air traffic system. We all hear from outraged constituents who have had enough of delays and of cancellations. The American Society of Civil Engineers periodically issues an infrastructure report

card. In 2005, aviation received only a D-plus. We're in a bad situation and it is only going to get worse.

Traffic is predicted to grow over 4 percent per year until we reach 1 billion passengers by 2015. Air cargo is growing at a rate of more than 5 percent per year. We have a general aviation community that is unique and more active than any other country in the world.

The bill before us increases Federal investment in aviation infrastructure with funding for the Airport Improvement Program which provides grants from the aviation trust fund for airport improvements, increased to a total of $15.8 billion over 4 years. The Facilities and Equipment program is increased to $13 billion. We also increase the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety projects. This cap was last raised 7 years ago and the $4.50 then is now only worth $2.86 due to the incredibly high construction cost inflation.

One of the most important initiatives under way at the FAA is the modernization of our air traffic control system, known as NextGen. We must move away from an antique 50-year-old ground-based technology to a modern satellite-based system in order to increase capacity, lower costs and increase safety. The bill seeks to move this process along while instilling accountability. Congress will need to provide effective oversight to be sure the program stays on track and that we have the financial resources for this $15 to $20 billion multi-year program to keep it moving forward.

Madam Chairman, there are a variety of other provisions too numerous to enumerate which improve on safety, provide for noise mitigation and enhance other environmental initiatives. The mandatory retirement age for pilots would be increased from age 60 to 65. Passenger rights would be enhanced by ensuring that airlines plan for the care of passengers who are held hostage on tarmacs and will seek to avoid such occurrences by establishing a process to avoid clear overscheduling that inevitably leads to delay.

However, I am placed in the rather odd position of voting ``no'' on final passage for my subcommittee's bill. Though the base bill was put together on a bipartisan basis, two amendments were adopted by the committee which cause me grave concern for the long-term prospects of this bill. We have it on good authority that the bill will be vetoed if section 601 regarding contract impasse procedures is not revised. The current provision provides for changes in future impasse procedures, which I don't object to; but then it also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay under terms of the 1998 contract. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in 2008 is $179 million, and $477 million over the life of the bill. The FAA estimates a total cost as high as $1.9 billion over 5 years and $7.5 billion over 10 years.

Second, an amendment was adopted that would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. This provision is really targeted at one company, FedEx. FedEx Express was organized as and still is an air carrier, in particular an express carrier. As such, it has been covered by the Railway Labor Act since its creation in 1971. Yes, it has trucks, but it is a fully integrated system which was reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some draw comparisons to UPS, another great and innovative company for which we all have the greatest respect and, yes, even affection. But UPS organized a hundred years ago as a truck company and as such is rightly covered by the National Labor Relations Act. I would note that other companies within the FedEx family such as FedEx Freight are also covered by the NLRA. These are two different companies with two different corporate structures, and I regret that this change is included in the bill before us.

I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member Mica for working together as best we could, sometimes working through basic philosophical differences. I thank the staff for the many hours they have put into helping to produce this bill. Finally, I appreciate the cooperation of the Science Committee for its contribution of the research provisions and the Ways and Means Committee for extending the aviation taxes that fund much of this program.

Madam Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 2881, which will reauthorize our aviation programs for the next 4 years.

Most of us here are experienced air travelers, as we fly back and forth to our districts each week. We all know the capacity crunch our air system is experiencing--both on the ground and in the air. All of us are dealing with outraged constituents who are tired of delays, cancelled flights, or being held hostage for hours at a time while a plane sits on the tarmac.

We need to invest and make improvements to our air transportation system:

Air passenger demand is predicted to grow 4.3 percent each year through 2015--resulting in 1 billion passengers annually by 2015.

The number of aircraft to be handled by air traffic control is expected to grow from 45.1 million in 2004 to 48.5 million in 2015.

Air cargo is growing at a rate of more than 5 percent a year.

According to the FAA and other experts, $9 billion to $15 billion in capital investment is needed per year.

Aviation is critical to our economic vitality. The commercial aviation industry is responsible for 8 percent of our GDP. It creates and sustains more than 10 million jobs.

For a sector that is so critical to our future, you would think a safe and efficient air transportation system would be one of our top national priorities. And yet, the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2005 infrastructure report card gives aviation a grade of only a D+.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 will take important steps to address these problems.

It increases investment in aviation infrastructure, authorizing $15.8 billion over 4 years for the Airport Improvement Program (AlP) which provides grants to airports for needed airport expansion and development. The Facilities and Equipment program provides needed air navigation systems and funding is increased in this bill to $13 billion over 4 years.

While we need to expand capacity on the ground, we also need to do so in the air. The air traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen, will move us from a ground-based radar system to a satellite- based system. Rather than verbally direct every movement of every plane, air traffic controllers will manage traffic and become involved with specific aircraft only as needed. We will be able to handle the increasing air traffic that we know is coming without a huge increase in controllers.

H.R. 2881 also addresses the issue of passenger rights, as has been demanded by angry passengers who feel they have been abused. The issue of delays, flight schedules and flight diversions is a complicated one. The bill includes a variety of consumer provisions, including requiring airlines to have contingency plans on how they will respond when planes are excessively delayed, including ensuring that trapped passengers are properly cared for. The FAA must approve the plans and can impose civil penalties. The FAA administrator also is directed to work with airlines when there is clear evidence that the number of flights scheduled exceeds the maximum capacity of the airport--a situation that almost guarantees excessive delays.

In addition, H.R. 2881 will improve safety and enhance environmental protection. The number of aviation safety inspectors will be increased, funds for runway incursion reduction programs are increased and other safety programs are strengthened.

We are addressing environmental issues by requiring the phase-out in 5 years of noisy Stage II jet aircraft so those who live around airports can enjoy at least a little more peace and less noise overhead.

In an effort to increase fuel efficiency and decrease emissions, several innovative programs and pilots are established. For example, the Aircraft Departure Queue Management Pilot Program authorizes 5 airports to employ new traffic flow management technologies to better manage the movement of aircraft on the ground. The goal is to reduce ground holds and idling times--leading to reduced emissions and increased fuel savings.

The CLEEN Partnership is a 10-year cooperative agreement for the development and certification of lower energy, emissions and noise, engine and airframe technology.

One of the more popular provisions would raise the age at which commercial pilots must retire from the current age 60 to age 65. This will put the United States in line with international standards. In this day and age, age 60 retirement is really an anachronism, and we need to update and modernize this requirement.

While I support the vast majority of the provisions in this bill, and we did work together on a bipartisan basis to develop the base bill, I find myself in the odd position of having to vote ``no'' on final passage of our reauthorization bill. This is primarily because of two provisions.

First, section 601 of H.R. 2881 amends contract impasse procedures and also effectively

overturns a contract implemented last year. I agree that the current contract impasse procedures that were instituted in the 1996 personnel reforms needs to be revised. I will not oppose revising the impasse procedure. In fact, a binding arbitration resolution solution may be the right solution.

The problem is that the provision also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay from 2005 until negotiations are completed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in fiscal year 2008 is $179 million and $477 million over the life of the bill. FAA estimates a total cost as high as $1.9 billion over 5 years and $7.5 billion over 10 years.

If we want a reauthorization enacted--and I do--this provision jeopardizes that goal. It has been made pretty clear to us that including the retroactive provisions will invite a presidential veto. And we may even have a problem getting to conference, based on the comments of some Senators.

So when this bill passes today--as I expect it will--we need to realize that more negotiation and compromise will be needed to actually get a bill that can be signed into law.

Second, section 806 would amend the labor law that covers the employees of FedEx Express. This has been an issue that has arisen on occasion here in the Congress. The simple fact is that FedEx Express, since its inception in 1971, has been and remains an air carrier--in particular an express carrier. FedEx trucks are fully integrated into the air express activities--and even the Ninth Circuit Court has found this to be the case.

The press enjoys characterizing this as a FedEx versus UPS fight. It is not. No member wants to pick sides between two innovative and successful companies. But UPS is a motor carrier subject to the National Labor Relations Act. It has been for the last 100 years. The two companies have a very different corporate structure.

Some continue to make reference to 1996 law that ``changed'' coverage of FedEx Express to the Railway Labor Act. This is misleading. In fact, a conforming amendment in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 had the inadvertent effect of potentially changing the labor law that would apply to FedEx Express from the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. No discussion on this issue was ever held during consideration of the bill, and there was no conscious decision made to effect that change in the ICC Termination Act. The 1996 legislation-- which was championed by former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina--simply corrected that inadvertent error. FedEx has been covered by the Railway Labor Act since 1971. It is unfortunate this bill would ignore all that has gone on before.

In closing, let me commend my Committee leadership for working together under what has frequently been some difficult times. There are some issues that we simply disagree on, but we have tried to continue to work toward the goal of getting a reauthorization in place.

I also want to express thanks to the Science Committee for its contribution of the research title and to the Ways and Means Committee for the tax title. I am pleased that Ways and Means rejected moving to a user fee-based financing scheme in favor of the current more efficient fuel tax program. Taxes are raised for general aviation and corporate jets, and we should note that these groups are accepting and supportive of the increase, knowing that the system requires it.

Again, I am pleased that we are moving forward. We need to invest in aviation infrastructure. We need to modernize our air traffic control system to increase capacity and improve safety. We need to address the environmental challenge facing the industry today. We need to ensure that our aviation system remains safe.

The United States has always been the leader around the world in aviation innovation--but I fear that position may be threatened. We must continue to lead and set the standard for the rest of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to again express my appreciation not only to him but to the staff and to the chairman of our committee, Mr. Oberstar; the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello; all the members as well as members in the leadership of what is called powerful Ways and Means Committee around here and the Science Committee for their contribution to this bill.

The fact of the matter is that we have approached the bulk of our work in a strong bipartisan way. We worked on the underlying bill in that spirit. Unfortunately, there are several provisions that are controversial and would impede our ability to actually get work through the whole process and signed by the President that were added in the full committee. But let there be no doubt that our country needs to get this legislation passed to accommodate new investment in our aviation system.

We are at the brink of rolling out a new generation of technology to accommodate the growth, to increase efficiency and safety in that system, be it a 15-, 20-, maybe 25-year multimillion dollar system. Doing that will increase the capacity of the system. We will maintain America's lead in aviation on a global basis and having that framework in place so that the administrators and the industries involved can plan with reduced uncertainty, which is very, very important. We are already late with this legislation. The current program is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. We will probably be doing a short-term extension. But we do need a reauthorization to proceed in a way that can be brought to a successful conclusion and signed by our President. And we look forward to working through the process with our colleagues on the other side of this building and on the other side of this aisle.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Oberstar-Costello manager's amendment.

Unfortunately, I can't support this amendment. While we have reached bipartisan agreements on many of the provisions, there are several that impose new burdens, new regulations and potentially high and crippling costs. For example, notifying a passenger when buying a ticket whether an insecticide has been used on the plane in the last 60 days before the flight is a procedural nightmare for airlines. Is it really a national problem that requires such onerous regulation? How many flights would that plane have taken and in what countries? It's just incredible.

Again, many provisions are worthy, but I cannot support this amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to our ranking member, Mr. Mica.

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

Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

I congratulate you on working to get this amendment in a way that it can be supported. It is supported by both sides.

Reserving the right to object, my understanding is that you have to do this in the full House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it is both unnecessary and redundant. From June 2004 to June 2006, the FAA established an aviation rulemaking advisory committee consisting of government, industry and labor unions in order to update the current training requirements. The proposed rewrite of Federal regulations will address, among other things, the area of alcohol awareness training for flight and gate attendants. The FAA plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in The Federal Register before the end of calendar year 2007.

The FAA's current training requirements address the very issue of handling unruly and intoxicated passengers, both in the air and on the ground. This rulemaking will further strengthen FAA's already adequate training programs to a level that I am sure will meet the gentleman's expectations.

So the Udall amendment is premature. We should let the agency with the most expertise take the lead to do the best job of dealing with the problem which we all agree needs to be even better dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, having no other requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this provision would gut much of the ongoing high- priority work of the Department of Transportation Aviation Enforcement Office by requiring most of its resources to be dedicated to consumers' complaints.

While I certainly agree that consumer complaint oversight is important, the dedication of so many resources to only one issue is just not right. This provision would force the Aviation Enforcement Office to stop other important aviation enforcement, compliance, and consumer information and education activities that have for years been a priority for that office.

This provision would do so by requiring the investigation of each consumer complaint regarding flight cancellations, overbooking, baggage, refunds, fares and related conditions, frequent flier programs and deceptive or misleading advertising.

Currently, the only investigations that have been required by Congress are disability-related complaints. Sadly, to comply with this provision, the Aviation Enforcement Office would have to discontinue enforcement and compliance work involving racial, ethnic and sex-based discrimination, compliance with the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, public charter flight violations, and code sharing disclosure violations.

Compliance with this provision would also necessitate that the office end its enforcement of unrealistic scheduling, contract of carriage violations, other unfair and deceptive practices, air carrier fitness and unlicensed and unauthorized operations, insurance violations, and reporting violations.

In the opinion of the experts at the Department of Transportation, these areas of consumer protection are of great importance because they safeguard the whole pool of consumers by protecting against bad business practice trends, rather than prosecuting case by case.

In the area of consumer information and education, some of the most important matters that would have to be eliminated are preparation of the monthly air travel consumer report, updating of aviation consumer guidance material, conducting industry and public forums on disability issues, and participating and providing information of government, industry and consumer conferences. In addition, the Aviation Enforcement Office would have to cease all its rulemaking activities.

Everyone knows that with tight government budgets, you really cannot investigate every single case at the Federal level. Instead, you provide a forum to file and maintain complaints that are reviewed for patterns of abuse. You then pursue those cases that will do the most good for the largest number of consumers.

Again, this amendment, contrary to the intent of the author, would have disastrous effects on aviation consumer protection and enforcement of the aviation economic regulations that are currently on the books, and, therefore, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman's amendment and say that as we look to the future of wind energy, we need to make certain that the process for siting turbines is appropriate for all stakeholders.

Specifically, we need policies in place to ensure that wind turbines do not interfere with important aviation sites, while giving the wind industry appropriate planning tools.

I wish to thank Congressman Neugebauer for working with the wind industry and others to refine this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I thank him for the cooperation and the splendid support the committee has given in the furtherance of this legislation in their extremely important responsibility.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler), speaking on behalf of the Committee of Science and Technology, and thank them for their contributions to the legislation. Their role is the research and development portion of FAA's operations, and they made a significant and very healthy beneficial contribution. The gentleman from Kentucky will speak on behalf of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes and recognize the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from Michigan, the gentlewoman from Michigan, and the gentlewoman from Texas that these projects are of great importance. They are examples of the type of projects we envisioned when we crafted section 114. Dallas Love Field and Wayne County Airport Authority are well suited to participate in the pilot project, and I would urge FAA to give consideration to both applications.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I thank the gentleman for raising that issue. Lack of a runway safety area on an airport is a critical gap, a serious gap in the safety features of an airport, and I assure the gentleman we will invite the Santa Monica Airport Authority, with the gentleman's participation, and the Office of Airports of FAA to come in to

have a discussion about the safety needs of this airport and funding them within the airport's master plan into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) as well. This is a matter of very great concern, and you've raised a matter of national security significance.

The FAA does have administrative authority to declare a no fly zone, but would do so in this situation, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security to identify the threat, establish the need for restrictions on aircraft operations, and the FAA would then issue the order. I pledge to the gentlewoman and to the gentleman that we'll bring both Departments, Transportation and Homeland Security, together with the delegation from New York to discuss this matter and to do so in a bipartisan fashion, because there are Republican Members who have asked about this matter as well, and begin the process, orderly and appropriately, of designating a no fly zone.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), Chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for raising the issue. Mr. Garrett's right on.

Mr. Sestak from Pennsylvania, Mr. Hall from New York, Mr. Shays from Connecticut, obviously this is a bipartisan, nonpartisan issue. It's a widespread concern.

You have my assurance that I will talk to the FAA, will talk to GAO, ask them to accelerate the work on their report, and GAO's findings need to be reviewed prior to the redesign of the airspace.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. It has been a very substantial one.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to express appreciation to the gentleman for raising this issue and for his forbearance as we work through the legislative process.

The GAO report is on the mark. The gentleman's concerns are right. We will work with him and with all of our colleagues who depend on National Airport to increase capacity at that airport.

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

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding a few additional seconds to close.

This has been, all through the hearing process, an open and inclusive process that we conducted in the best tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We appreciate the participation of the members on the Republican side. Mr. Mica has given a considerable amount of his time from all the other issues that we have to deal with in committee. The gentleman from Wisconsin has been a quick learner and a very astute participant in both the hearings and the markup process. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) has really put his arms around the subject of aviation, mastered the issues, and brought forth an extraordinary piece of legislation that will serve aviation well and serve the Nation well out into the future.

Yes, we have disagreement principally on two issues, and we have been open and candid about that right from the outset. We have worked cooperatively, bipartisanly to try to resolve the air traffic controller issue. Both parties seemed irreconcilable. We have created a process in this legislation by which the air traffic controller issue can be resolved with an arbitration process.

And I think that's in the best interest of the Nation.

As we go forward from here, I look forward to the amendments that will be forthcoming, and I think in a very constructive manner we can conclude the action on this bill today.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record exchanges of letters between the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and other relevant committees.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science and

Technology,

Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: I write to you regarding H.R. 2881,

the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' This legislation

authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)

programs, including research and development programs.

H.R. 2881 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,

accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the

bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill

should not be construed as the Committee on Science and

Technology waiving its jurisdiction over H.R. 2881.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Science and Technology Committee conferees during any House-

Senate conference convened on this legislation on provisions

of the bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Bart Gordon,

Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Airline delays, as I said at the outset of general debate, have reached historic levels, 72 percent of flights arriving on time so far this year. Long term, we need continued modernization of the aircraft traffic control system. That is not to say that this is a system that has been frozen in time and nothing has been done.

The FAA has, over the past 20-plus years, 25 years, installed over 80,000 pieces of technology to upgrade, modernize, expand, and increase capacity in the air traffic control system.

They installed a voice switching and control system over one weekend, with a million lines of computer code, installing this entirely new communication system over one weekend without a second of delay in the air traffic control operations. That's like changing a tire on a car moving at 60 miles an hour. They did it.

They installed the automatic replacement system for the en route centers, and did that after 5 years of development of this greatly enhanced new technology, increasing to 1,300,000 lines of computer code. And the installment is now working well.

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System, the STARS, that, too, took years to develop; 1,300,000 lines of computer code also installed and operating effectively. But those were platforms on which we build the air traffic control technology of the future. And in this legislation, we provide for the funding of the air traffic control technology of the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

We'll call it the Oberstar-Costello manager's amendment, which will serve to reduce

delays, increase passenger rights, enhance small community air service, and improve oversight of safety maintenance of aircraft.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the manager's amendment with an amendment which is at the desk.

If the gentleman would yield on his reservation.

It is to add JFK Airport to the language pending in the manager's amendment.

Yes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman's amendment will make certain that we retain capacity in the Nation's aviation system. All the water that ever was on Earth is here today. We are not making any more of it. And all the airports there are or ever will be, frankly, are here now. It is just so difficult to add aviation capacity in this country and airport capacity.

The gentleman's amendment will make it possible not only to retain but to enhance existing airport capacity. I thank him for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this bill and commend Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello for their work on this bill and Ranking Members Petri and Mica for their work.

This is a very important bill for modernization and safety improvements, which are critical, and also passenger rights.

I also want to speak about three specific provisions. I would like to thank the chairman for working with me on two provisions to invest in R&D for new, cleaner fuels in aviation.

The first is a provision for an FAA Center of Excellence focused on alternative jet fuel research and development, as we work to address global warming and cut down on our use of foreign fossil fuels.

Second, R&D funding for alternative avgas for piston engine planes. Piston engine planes currently use leaded gas. It's important that we work to find an alternative. I want to thank Chairman Gordon also for working with me on that in the Science Committee.

And, third, I'm pleased with the inclusion of report language on the Qualification Based Selection process for PFC-funded airport projects. I look forward to working with the big four on this issue as the bill moves forward in conference.

I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very important legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.

I also rise to commend Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri of the Subcommittee on Aviation for their excellent leadership on this bill and for their continued dedicated service on transportation issues.

This bill contains a number of critical provisions that will improve our nation's transportation system. In particular, this legislation will go a long way towards modernizing and improving our nation's air traffic control capabilities by providing $13 billion to accelerate the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation system. Through modernization and increased use of technology, this system will enable our air traffic control system to meet two to three times the amount of current demand, allowing us to keep pace with the ever- increasing number of flights. This technology will also allow us to more accurately track flights, preventing collisions in our increasingly congested skies. In addition, the FAA will be given the resources to make necessary improvements and replacements of facilities and equipment, ensuring the highest degree of air traffic support.

I would also like to thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the full Committee and Subcommittee for including report language on the potential application of Qualification Based Selection for Passenger Facility Charge funded airport projects. Qualification Based Selection is a process that works well with Airport Improvement Program funded projects and some other federally-funded transportation projects. It has been a process that has saved time and saved money in other transportation projects. Consequently, taking a closer and more comprehensive look to see how it could be effectively implemented with PFC-funded projects seems to be a logical step.

This reauthorization also takes some important steps towards protecting flight crews and passengers. For example, OSHA requirements are finally extended to aircraft crewmembers under this bill, helping to ensure their on-the-job safety. This legislation also directs the FAA to conduct a study on pilot fatigue, and based on the findings of that study, update their regulations regarding flight time limitations and rest requirements for pilots. Furthermore, airlines and airports will be required to have contingency plans in place to take care of passengers affected by long delays, including providing food, water and medical care. This provision is a welcome relief to all of us who have ever experienced long and painful flight delays.

Furthermore, this reauthorization includes $570 million to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors by more than one-third. These inspectors develop, administer, and enforce safety requirements for all aircraft being developed and flying today. Increasing the number of these inspectors will help ensure that our skies are as safe as possible.

I am also pleased that this reauthorization includes a number of provisions that will improve our environment. It directs the FAA to work to develop lower energy, emissions and noise engine and airframe technology. This type of technology will help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve our air quality, and combat climate change. This bill also contains measures to improve the environments of airport lands, including addressing water and air quality issues, and reduce aircraft idling time to reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

In addition to these environmental provisions, I would also like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica of the full Committee and Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri of the Aviation Subcommittee for working with me to include two provisions increasing R&D for environmental improvements related to aircraft fuel.

Currently, general aviation piston aircraft operate on 100 Octane leaded aviation gasoline, or avgas, which contains four times the amount of lead found in the already-banned leaded automotive fuel and is extremely toxic. Unfortunately, no economical alternative currently exists. Environmental and health concerns over this leaded gasoline will only continue to grow as use of these planes increases.

In order to address this issue, I worked to include in this bill a provision to continue and enhance R&D for alternative aviation fuels. This provision, which authorizes $750,000 for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, will help to expedite the development, testing, and approval of an economical, unleaded alternative aircraft fuel.

Also included in this reauthorization is a provision I authored for a new FAA Center of Excellence focused on alternative jet fuel research. FAA Air Transportation Centers of Excellence provide research on important transportation issues through partnerships between the FAA, universities, industry and state and local government. In conducting transportation research, Centers of Excellence also prepare a new generation of trained professionals ready to meet our nation's transportation needs.

And in the coming years, perhaps no transportation need will be greater than the need for alternative energies. Increasing demand for fossil fuels and continued volatility in many energy supplying nations means that the price of fossil fuels will continue to go up. And, increased emissions from the use of fossil fuels further endanger our global environment.

Jet fuel in particular illustrates the dangers of our current reliance on fossil fuels. Many airlines in this country, already fighting bankruptcy, are particularly vulnerable to higher fuel prices and increased volatility in the energy market. And while jet emissions still constitute only 3% of global emissions, that share is growing rapidly as the number of flights worldwide continues to increase.

Consequently, it is apparent that developing alternative jet fuels is imperative for our Nation's airlines and our environment. Recognizing this need, and witnessing the valuable R&D that FAA Centers of Excellence have provided in other areas such as Airliner Cabin Environment, Noise and Emissions, and Airport Technology, I authored a provision included in this reauthorization which will create an FAA Center of Excellence dedicated to alternative jet fuel research. This Center of Excellence's research will improve the long-term health of our domestic aviation economy and our global environment.

The benefits of this Center of Excellence and all the improvements in safety, efficiency, labor protections and environment provided by

this reauthorization are particularly important to my hometown of Chicago. Chicago is the transportation hub of the Nation and transportation is--metaphorically and literally--what keeps our region moving. Chicago Midway Airport, which is in my District, and nearby O'Hare International Airport, are two of the busiest and largest airports in the Nation. And while thousands of people pass through these airports every day, they are the local airports for my constituents and the surrounding communities. Consequently, any national improvements in our aviation system will be acutely felt by those of us who live under the busy skies of northeastern Illinois. I believe this reauthorization is a good beginning in improving not only the flying experience of my constituents, but also in reducing the amount of aviation emissions and noise that they encounter on a daily basis.

And importantly for my District, this FAA reauthorization provides necessary funding to make our runways safer. This issue is important to the many people in Chicagoland who still clearly remember the tragic accident in 2005 when an aircraft skidded off the runway at Midway Airport and into a passing car, killing a young boy. To address some of the concerns raised by these types of accidents, this legislation provides $42 million over four years for runway incursion reduction programs and $74 million over four years for runway status light acquisition and installation. These runway improvements will not only help to protect flight crews and aircraft passengers, but also the people such as those in my district who live and work alongside our Nation's airports.

In conclusion, this FAA reauthorization contains important efficiency, safety and environmental provisions that will benefit the Nation and Chicagoland in particular, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

Mr. Chairman, research and development is absolutely fundamental to the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the bill before us today includes a number of provisions that will ensure the agency's R&D enterprise continues to be robust and productive. Title I of H.R. 2881 reauthorizes the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development program for 4 years at levels that, for the most part, are consistent with the Administration's request. The bill also contains a number of provisions specific to R&D projects and activities, many of which are consolidated in Title IX, but are also incorporated in other parts of the bill.

The Federal Aviation Administration is a unique federal enterprise that is fully reliant on maintaining a highly sophisticated network of communications, navigation, and surveillance facilities located at many sites throughout this country. The FAA also regulates the design and operation of the aircraft that fly within our airspace. Our national airspace system, and the economic benefits that flow from it, would not be possible without a well-funded research and development program and a dedicated staff of scientists and engineers. Research results have led to the development of a huge number of products that continue to improve the safety, efficiency and capacity of our national airways system and the planes that fly in it.

The Science and Technology Committee held oversight hearings early this year in preparation for writing and reporting H.R. 2698, The Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007, and just 3 months ago, on June 22, our committee reported the bill on a voice vote. H.R. 2881 incorporates virtually all of the bill's provisions, and for that, I want to extend my thanks to the leadership and staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their willingness to work together on these important issues.

While there are a number of R&D provisions in this bill, in the time remaining I want to highlight three programs. First and foremost, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is working to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) that is--and I say this without any exaggeration--absolutely essential if we are to ensure a vibrant and growing air transportation network. The current system is at capacity and will not be able to accommodate future growth.

The JPDO is a unique federal collaboration originally authorized in the R&D title of the Vision 100 legislation signed by the President during the 108th Congress. It is led by the FAA and includes a number of other federal agencies, and its role is to coordinate and manage the research, development and implementation of technologies needed to meet future capacity, safety, efficiency, and security requirements for our national airspace system. H.R. 2881 strengthens management oversight and accountability, and directs participating federal agencies to assign a senior agency official to be specifically responsible for that agency's role in the development and implementation of NextGen. It also creates a more transparent budgeting process to help Congress determine if the Administration is providing amounts needed and requested by JPDO participating agencies. With regard to JPDO's budget, the bill before us is silent on authorization amounts, leaving this and future Congresses with the ability to fund the JPDO as needed. The fact is, at this early stage of development, too little is known about NextGen's cost and budget profile over the decade ahead to develop credible cost estimates.

At the Administration's request, H.R. 2881 includes a new start called the `CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise engine and airframe technology) research, development and implementation partnership.' The goals of this program are to research and develop technologies capable of significantly reducing emissions and noise produced by turbine-powered aircraft, as well as increasing their fuel efficiency. This legislation directs the FAA to coordinate its efforts with NASA.

Finally, this legislation takes important first steps to allow for the safe and routine operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in our national airspace system. All of us know the important capabilities provided by UAS systems in the Middle East. Here at home, these aircraft will vastly improve our ability to monitor our borders, to help communities recover from natural disasters, and take environmental and land-use measurements. But first we need to develop `sense and avoid' technologies, along with flight control and navigation technologies, so that unmanned aircraft can safely fly in the same airspace used by general aviation and commercial aircraft without threat of collision. H.R. 2881 gives the FAA the authority to begin the necessary research, plus to develop schedules to meet mandated deadlines.

Mr. Chairman, FAA's research and development activities are essential to its mission, and the features I've described, plus many others in the legislation before us, will strengthen the agency's capabilities to accommodate and manage our Nation's national airspace system.

Having said that, I do want to express reservations about portions of H.R. 2881 unrelated to research and development, and caution Members to carefully weigh the bill in its totality before casting their votes. I clearly understand this bill has some very contentious issues that may, on balance, leave Members no choice but to vote against final passage.

I am particularly concerned about provisions in this bill that will impose a variety of new costs on an industry that is still recovering from several years of billion-dollar losses and,

to make matters worse, could delay FAA's ability to replace its aging air traffic control system. To give two examples, H.R. 2881 would permit up to a 55 percent increase in passenger facilities charges assessed by airports, the costs of which appear as an additional fee on airline tickets. The bill also voids the current labor-management contract for air traffic controllers, forcing the agency to reinstitute its older--and more expensive--labor contract, and it requires reopening negotiations on a new contract under a new negotiating regime. This labor provision seriously jeopardizes FAA's ability to finance its new air traffic control system, which, by some estimates, could result in an additional payout to air traffic controllers of up to a half-billion dollars over the next 4 years, plus whatever additional costs are imposed by a new contract. These are just two of a number of provisions that will most certainly push up the price of air travel. The net effect of these changes will be to push the cost of air travel so high as to make it unaffordable for many working Americans to fly, seriously affecting their quality of life.

For these and other reasons, I cannot, and will not, support H.R. 2881 in its present form.

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

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to bring to the floor the FAA reauthorization legislation that is before us. As Members know, and those who follow this subject, our authorization runs out, I believe, the end of next week. That is our Federal policy and projects' financing ability to run our Nation's air traffic system. We had a responsibility to move forward legislation to renew that Federal law, and that's why we are here today. I think that is an important responsibility.

I have tried to work with Mr. Oberstar, who now chairs the full committee. He chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, ironically, when I was a freshman in Congress. And as he mentioned, I had the opportunity to chair that subcommittee for the past 6 years and developed a great working relationship with him.

I am pleased to work with my ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), who has done yeoman's work to try to bring this legislation forward in a responsible manner, working with the now- chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who likewise has put his full efforts towards this important reauthorization.

We have been fortunate, too, to have great staff on both sides of the aisle working together to meet that responsibility. I am pleased that we could bring the bill forward.

However, I have to say, in all honesty, I have some mixed emotions. I must also state that when we come to final passage, and I have told Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello and others, that I will cast a vote not in support of this FAA reauthorization, and really for two reasons.

First of all, when we introduced the bill, there were several objectionable provisions that had been proposed that I opposed, and I do respect the gentlemen from Minnesota and also Illinois, in working cooperatively to introduce the bill without those objectionable provisions. However, right after we introduced it and we marked up the bill, we started sort of piling on, and there are two provisions which I cannot support, two major provisions, and I made them aware of my opposition.

The first one involves an unprecedented reach-back, and it is for the air traffic controllers. Let me say there are men and women, some 15,000 of them, who do an incredible job serving our air traffic control system. And back in the 1990s, I believe that they were underpaid, undercompensated for their responsibilities. But through a contract that was negotiated then under the Clinton administration, they did receive for the next 7 years an average increase of about 10 percent a year. In fact, it totals 75 percent over those 7 years.

Now, I would love to have it 10 percent guaranteed increase. I think people who work here in the Congress would like to have a 10 percent pay increase every year; 1.2 million Federal employees, maybe another 20,000 that work at FAA would all like to have this deal, and that deal wasn't to be.

This past Congress had the difficult task of receiving the contract that was being negotiated and the final offer that was made by FAA because the contract reached an impasse. And in an

unprecedented fashion also, the terms of that contract offer was brought to Congress, and the air traffic controllers lost in that vote here on the floor.

Now, I sympathize with Mr. Oberstar and also with Mr. Costello. The appropriators turned down the air traffic controllers in the House. We had several CRs where they attempted to reopen this contract; it was turned down. It was turned down by the appropriators in the Senate. It was turned down in the bill that is now before the other body. Each time that they have gone to the Democrat side, which now controls this body, they have been turned down.

Now, they did manage to put this provision to which I object in the bill, and it is unfortunate. It has a huge financial impact. It is estimated to be $1.9 billion, if this is allowed to go forward. And the money is one thing, but reaching back in an unfair manner to other Federal employees. We have some 20,000 professionals, engineers, people with Ph.D.s, a whole host of staff in FAA that aren't going to be treated in an equitable manner.

And then the bad precedent it sets for Congress. Folks, any time you get into a labor dispute, just bring it to Congress and we will up your salary when we are pressured. That can't be the way we operate. I have agreed to change the mechanism. Nobody in Congress likes to be the negotiator of salaries or contracts, and we shouldn't be, and I am committed to that.

I will also say that since we took up this bill and knowing that this is a pending controversial matter, I have worked day and night to try to get the administration and NATCA union representatives together to resolve those differences. I appreciate the work of all of those involved. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has also joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and myself and the Democrat members in that effort. Unfortunately, it's jammed into this bill and that's not fair.

There are other provisions that have been put in here for big labor. Now, I know labor won a big vote with the election and is attempting to increase its membership. I respect that, but I think that the grab they have attempted here goes beyond what I feel is reasonable, not only in expanding organizational opportunities that I think go beyond again a reasonable level but some of the other provisions in here that will add cost, that will add regulations, that will add complications to operating our system and not give us a fair return. Not only do we have a responsibility to bring forth this legislation that runs this system but we have an obligation and responsibility to taxpayers and others, the travelers who finance the system, that their funds be spent wisely.

I do also have some reservations about provisions that will be added in the manager's amendment. Again, it's not always how much money you spend, but how you spend that money, and we have a responsibility to spend that wisely and very efficiently for hardworking Americans who are paying in to also help finance this system.

And then, of course, the final point is the President has issued a veto statement, and he will veto this based on spending, based on the overreach by labor for their contract and other terms that have been put into this legislation. Even though I have opposition, I have pledged to work to move the process forward and continue to renew that pledge at this time as we move forward with the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.