Kenny Callahan Act

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

We bring to the House, once again, to the Committee of the Whole, the authorization for FAA for the next 4 years. We're getting very good at this. We did it 2 years ago. It passed the House overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, the other body did not act on it. So we held further hearings and reshaped the bill. Essentially we have 95 percent of what we had in 2007 in this bill. It was worked out then in cooperation with the Republican members of the committee and with the ranking Republican, Mr. Mica, and again this year with Mr. Mica, Mr. Petri and the Aviation Subcommittee under the extraordinarily gifted leadership of Mr.

Costello, who held numerous hearings to air the various aspects of this bill and other aviation issues.

So that we bring a bill for which there is broad bipartisan support except perhaps for four areas in which there are differences and on which my good friend, Mr. Mica, will elaborate in his own good time. We bring a bill of $70 billion investment in aviation over the next 4 years; $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program to build runways, taxiways, air traffic on the aviation hard side, as I call it, of airports; $13.4 billion for facilities and equipment account over 4 years. That's for the continuing modernization of the air traffic control system. Air traffic control is not a snapshot in time. It's a continuously evolving technology that keeps pace with the growth of aviation and with the need for greater safety at altitude, on approach, on departure, on the ground, in the airport runway safety areas. We provide substantial funding not only for the present but for the future investment and modernization of the air traffic control system going on to the next-generation technology that will be satellite-based. Higher reliability, greater accuracy, shorten the flight time, shorten fuel burned in the air and vastly improve safety.

On the capacity side, we provide authority for airport authorities, at their choice, at their decision, to increase the passenger facility charge that was initiated in 1990, at the time when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee and the first Bush administration, with then- Secretary Sam Skinner advocating for this increase and this authority for airports, to increase this charge on the grounds that they are accountable directly to the people who use their airports. It is a local decision, and we're allowing them to do it. It's not required. Airport authorities can impose or not impose a passenger facility charge. But it's used for all the authority airports are granted under the Airport Improvement Program, to expand capacity, improve the terminals, improve movement of passengers on the airport grounds to and from their parking area, from the drop-off area onto the aircraft itself.

It has been a very well-used and useful tool.

As part of the increase or the authority to use passenger facility charges in 1990 and with concurrence of the administration, we require that every airport that imposes a PFC will lose 50 cents on each dollar of their AIP entitlement account, and that goes into a special account in the Aviation Trust Fund for the use of small airports that don't have the capacity to level a passenger facility charge. That has resulted in some $800 million a year available for general aviation airports, regional airports, and smaller nonhub airports, and has enabled them to participate in the Nation's aviation system.

There is a provision in this bill that we had in the 2007 bill that requires the Federal Aviation Administration to negotiate a new contract with its air traffic controllers. And if they do not reach an agreement 45 days after enactment, the issue will be sent to binding arbitration. The Republican administration objected to that provision. The ranking Republican on our committee, Mr. Mica, stoutly defended his administration's position, and his own view, that we should not have binding arbitration apply to this circumstance. I think it is fair to say he would accept that going forward.

Well, the bill never made its way through the Senate of 2007 or 2008. And we are an equal opportunity committee. So what we didn't trust the previous administration to do, we don't trust this administration to do. And we are keeping that language in this bill to keep the heat on them to negotiate this contract, renegotiate in due fairness to the air traffic controllers.

Then there is the matter of the foreign repair stations. There are 145 foreign repair stations certificated by the U.S. FAA in other countries where U.S. aircraft are maintained, supposedly to U.S. standards, to the standards of the airline as approved by FAA and to standards that we set for certification of aircraft maintenance personnel and certification of the facility in which the maintenance work is performed.

Over time, questions have arisen about the adequacy of standards in other countries. This legislation takes those concerns and wraps them into this language we have in the bill, saying they must meet our standards for criminal background checks, for drug and alcohol testing, for certification of the facility, and certification of the aircraft maintenance specialists. That is in the interests of every American who flies on an aircraft in our country or outside of our country that is maintained in a non-U.S. maintenance facility. And in the time since we passed that bill in 2007, the U.S. and the EU have negotiated an aviation agreement that moves toward harmonization of the aviation maintenance standards of our two countries.

That agreement provides, in Article 15, ``nothing in this agreement shall be construed to limit the authority of a party to (A) determine through its legislative, regulatory and administrative procedures the level of protection it considers appropriate for civil aviation safety and environmental testing and approvals, and (B) take all appropriate and immediate measures necessary to eliminate or minimize any derogation of safety.'' That is what we are doing, simply put, in this legislation using our legislative authority, require twice-a-year onsite inspections of facilities in which U.S. aircraft are maintained in facilities overseas.

If the Europeans want reciprocity under this agreement, they have that authority. They can inspect U.S. maintenance facilities which are doing work on foreign aircraft, European aircraft, in the United States. Basically, that is what it is. It is comity, fairness, equity, and safety in the best interests of our citizens.

There may be other issues. But I will reserve my time. And Mr. Costello will address more details of this legislation subsequently.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of letters on this particular piece of legislation.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2009.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 915,

the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further

consideration of H.R. 915, notwithstanding the jurisdictional

interest of the Committee on Science and Technology. Of

course, this waiver does not prejudice any further

jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this or similar

legislation. Further, I will support your request to be

represented in a House-Senate conference on those provisions

over which the Committee on Science and Technology has

jurisdiction in H.R. 915.

This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee

Report on H.R. 915 and inserted in the Congressional Record

as part of the consideration of this legislation in the

House. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have

worked regarding this matter and others between our

respective committees.

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

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar,

Chairman

I yield myself 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and, again, it's been a great pleasure working through this legislation over the past 2 years, trying to bring a bill through the House and to conference and to conclusion, and I want to commend Mr. Mica, our ranking member, for participating in various discussions that we had and negotiations with the Secretary of Transportation, the representative from the Office of Management and Budget, the air traffic controllers, and members of our committee, Mr. Costello in particular, several such negotiations with the previous administration that unfortunately resulted in no agreement. And the gentleman really made a serious effort, and I greatly respect and appreciate his participation, but I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman that the language we have on the arbitration is not unique.

I yield myself another 1 minute. Several times, over many years, this committee and its predecessor committee with authority over railroad issues has approved and the House has voted on Presidential Emergency Board to settle railroad labor disputes.

And in 1989, we moved legislation to establish an arbitration process to resolve the management labor dispute involving Eastern Airlines. Mr. Gingrich was the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, and he voted in favor of it. Unfortunately, even though it passed the Senate, President Bush, the First, vetoed it. We are simply acting on precedent that has been the case in the House to attempt to resolve matters of this kind.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, for his contribution and for his ever-present Norwegian wisdom that he has brought to the shaping of this legislation. He's been a splendid partner.

Now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair of our Water Resources Subcommittee, Ms. Johnson of Texas.

If the gentlewoman will yield.

The provision in section 114 establishes a pilot program envisioning four to five pilot projects to be determined by the Secretary of Transportation. I will gradually join with the gentlewoman and appeal to the Secretary on behalf of the Dallas project. I think it makes good sense. I think it would be a splendid candidate and would be happy to support her in advocating for selection of the Dallas Love Field project.

I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue and for yielding.

I, too, represent a district with a large rural area and many small airports. The standards for firefighting on board aircraft have not been updated for years, and it is time to do that. It is not our intent that this updating should impose exceptional, unusual, or heavy burdens on small airports. In fact, the language in section 311(d) states that, during the rulemaking proceeding, the FAA shall assess the potential impact of any revisions to the firefighting standards on airports and on air transportation service.

We are going to be very clear that they take into account the unique circumstances. Many small communities can share firefighting services with local firefighting organizations.

I yield the distinguished gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

There are airports where that doesn't exist, where that capability does not exist. So we will be watching the rulemaking process very carefully. I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to ensure that in the process small airports are heard and that in the end their concerns are reflected.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the chair of a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I want to compliment the gentleman for his vigorous and persistent advocacy for the St. George Airport. I'm delighted that Secretary LaHood has committed to fund the navigation aids for the St. George Airport. We encourage him to stay on track, and we'll continue to work with the gentleman in pursuit of that objective. Congratulations on your advocacy.

I yield now 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado has been most persistent and vigilant on this issue of aviation safety. As the gentleman rightly noted, there have been a number of air ambulance crashes in his district, two of which were fixed-wing aircraft.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

We intend to concentrate the attention of the FAA on helicopters because the preponderance of the problem has been helicopter services, but the FAA can and should take action also on fixed-wing aero medical service safety. Mr. Costello and I will work with the gentleman not only to ensure that helicopter ambulance service is held to the highest standard but also that of fixed-wing aircraft.

I appreciate the gentleman's persistence on this subject and his knowledge on the issue.

We reserve the balance of our time.

I yield myself the minute and a half remaining.

I would not want to come back on this floor at some future date and have to respond to an air tragedy because an aircraft wasn't properly inspected in a foreign repair station that was not properly crewed or supervised by U.S. personnel. We have the personnel in Europe to do the inspections. If the European community says--and they're

crying wolf, they're screaming inanities here that they don't have the personnel to inspect mutually in the U.S., then that's their problem. It's not ours.

But I want to say that the Congressional Antitrust Modernization Commission recently made this recommendation: ``Statutory immunities from the antitrust laws should be disfavored. They should be granted rarely and only where, and for so long as, a clear case has been made that the conduct in question would subject the actors to antitrust liability and is necessary to satisfy a specific societal goal that trumps the benefit of the free market to consumers and to the U.S. economy in general.''

We are not terminating alliances. The language in this bill says that the antitrust authority shall expire at the end of 3 years. The alliance can continue. There is nothing wrong with alliances, but no one in this society deserves permanent immunity from the antitrust laws of this country, and that is what Bob Crandall, one of the greatest innovators in aviation history said that the antitrust immunity should not be allowed.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Because the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act was already enacted in March, P.L. 111-8, this amendment strikes the 2009 funding authorization in the base bill. Therefore, with adoption of the manager's amendment, total funding provided for Federal Aviation Administration programs in H.R. 915 is approximately $53.5 billion, including $12.3 billion for the airport improvement program, $10.1 billion for facilities and equipment, $794 million for research and development, and $30.3 billion for operations.

The manager's amendment also addresses safety, the Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise System, and noise.

On the safety provision, it includes a requirement that FAA initiate a rulemaking to improve the safety of flight crew members, of medical personnel, passengers, and helicopters providing air ambulance services. The FAA must issue a final rule on these issues within 16 months after date of enactment of the act.

The manager's amendment requires the Comptroller General to study helicopter and fixed-wing air ambulance service, including the state of the industry to request and dispatch practices and economic and medical issues and report back to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 1 year.

DOT is required to review the study, to issue a report to the committee indicating policy changes it intends to make as a result of the study. It strengthens the aviation safety whistleblower protection office.

The manager's amendment includes very specific language with reference to the foreign repair station issue citing the agreement, the bilateral aviation agreement, which I've already cited. I don't need to cite it again. The amendment makes clear that the language in this bill is in keeping not only with the language of, but the spirit of, the U.S./EU aviation agreement.

The amendment applies the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program to airports collecting passenger facility revenue. It provides more protection from noise for airport neighbors. Under existing law, the FAA is not permitted to fund soundproofing of residences to reduce airport noise unless the airport undertakes an extensive analysis, a Part 150 Study. The amendment allows grants for soundproofing without a Part 150 Study if the airport takes certain actions, such as preparing noise contours and implementing land-use zoning restrictions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

I reserve the right to close.

It's my amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry. Is the right to close reserved to the opposition to the amendment?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I will close to say that although we have beaten this repair station horse to death with 30-second cameo commentaries about threats of job losses, the point is safety. We must never negotiate away the right of the United States FAA, the gold standard for safety in the world, to assure that aircraft on which our fellow citizens travel are maintained properly and in accord with FAA standards and with certificated facilities and properly certificated maintenance personnel. And our right to inspect them should not be inhibited.

The previous administration should never have negotiated away any such right or presumed to limit our ability.

We are acting in this language in this bill under the authority of the U.S.-EU Aviation Agreement. It specifically says so. And for us to come in and inspect only when there is a problem is the graveyard mentality that got the FAA out of problems and fatalities in the eighties. We're not going to repeat that in the future.

Will the gentleman yield?

Could the gentleman explain whether his position is just raising questions or is he in opposition to the amendment?

If the gentleman would further yield, it's a legitimate concern, and we will address that concern--I assure the gentleman--as we move forward to hopefully conference with the Senate. I would like the distinguished ranking member to give us some further elaboration of these issues. We will address those.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

It was unclear to me what the gentleman was proposing. His amendment deals with whistleblowers, but his conversation rambled all over the lot on other provisions of the bill, and I was simply going to ask the gentleman if he was ever going to get to his amendment. And eventually he did.

We accept the whistleblower amendment. However, the gentleman is misguided about the passenger facility charge. We do not require airports to impose passenger facility charges, Mr. Chairman. It is a local option. They either do or they do not as airport needs require. If they want to expand airport runway capacity, taxiway capacity, parking apron capacity on the air side of airports and need, in addition to the airport improvement funds, additional revenues to do that, they will have to justify to their board, to their community, to those who use that airport, they have to justify their proposal to increase the passenger facility charge, show how it is going to be used, show how the revenues will contribute to improvement of aviation service and do it all in a public process.

I'm puzzled as to the gentleman's concerns about that provision and many others.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair of the subcommittee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I think I do not intend to oppose it.

I just want to make it clear that the language of the amendment is general in nature. And Mr. Chairman, I ask of the offeror of the amendment, although he referenced sitting Members of the House and Senate, he does not intend this language to apply to any specific Member, is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman.

The language is not intended to apply, my question is, to any specific Member?

It was a few years ago, quite a few years ago, 1996 to be exact, that the Republican majority foisted upon the Washington Airport Authority a requirement to designate, redesignate the name of the airport serving the Nation's capital. They started out this amendment by the

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, to name it ``Reagan National Airport.'' We pointed out that is renaming the airport. It is named for the first President of the United States.

That language was changed to call it the ``Washington-Reagan National Airport.'' Not only did the amendment require the Washington National Airport Authority to change the name of the airport, but it was made very clear to me that if they did not do that, and if they did not change the signs at their expense, that funds would be withheld from Washington National Airport. That was mean. That was vicious. It was done because there was the power to do it. And it was the wrong thing to do.

Now we should not be naming facilities for sitting Members of the House or of the other body. The plain language of the amendment is right, and that is the practice that we have followed. And I accept that. But I would just point out, as I did in that debate in 1996, that when the question of naming the new airport in Loudoun County came up, Senator Dole offered the amendment to give the Washington National Airport Authority the authority to designate a name for that airport. He did not say what name it should be. The airport authority named it.

I was of a mind to include such language in this bill, but I withheld doing it, to reestablish the power of the Washington National Airport Authority to rename that airport, should they choose to do so. It is their authority. It is not ours. And the then-majority ran roughshod. And I said to the gentleman from Georgia, you would scream to high heaven if the Congress tried to do this to an airport in your community, in your district. You would scream to high heaven if we told you what name to give it and to change the signs around the airport at your expense. But you are doing it out of harshness to the Nation's capital.

That's the wrong attitude, and the gentleman's amendment is in the right spirit.

But I just want to say for some of the interventions that I've heard on this floor that I've had it a little bit with posturing. This is not posturing. This is right. This is fair. We ought to do it, and we accept the amendment, but just know that there is a painful history and a wrong history about naming facilities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose.

We accept the gentleman's amendment, if the gentleman is prepared to yield his time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose.

We accept the amendment. If the gentleman is prepared to conclude his remarks and yield back, we can proceed. I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and want to commend him for pursuing so vigorously this issue, and I deplore the lack of response from the FAA, as we heard earlier in the day on the rule from the gentleman from Florida, who appealed many times to the FAA, and got no response to his concerns.

This process of redesign of the east coast airspace has been going on for 9 years, this particular plan. There are other plans that have been going on for 20 years. They should have been adequately discussed in the public domain. The Members of Congress should have been engaged in the process, and we're going to change that. We're going to make this happen.

And I want to assure the gentleman that we will work hand-in-glove with the gentleman, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee.

I would just like to inquire of the gentleman about Atlantic City airport. Is that in the gentleman's district?

If service were routed to Atlantic City, would that divert noise from the gentleman's constituents?

Well, I think there is additional capacity. This is the world's busiest airspace. The New York TRACON handles more aircraft movement than all of Europe combined. Finding places for those aircraft to approach and depart is extremely difficult. But there is capacity at Stuart Air Force Base, which is a joint use facility, and there is capacity at Atlantic City. All it needs is a surface rail line. And that would allow ocean approaches that would take noise away from the gentleman's constituencies, and from those in New York and from elsewhere. I'm going on way too long because we want to conclude this debate and get to the final votes.

But I know that the gentleman's colleague, Mr. LoBiondo, is very strong in support of service from Atlantic City. It would relieve noise from the gentleman's airport to move aircraft in that facility. It has a 10,000 foot runway. It has a taxiway. It has unused capacity. And it could relieve the New York airport situation, relieve the noise from the gentleman's constituency.

So let's work together. Let's have the FAA in for some discussions and pursue this matter further.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Oberstar for recognizing me and thank you for all of your leadership and your support. No one knows more about aviation or transportation issues in this country than Chairman Oberstar, and I think everyone acknowledges that and respects not only his valuable input but the work that he does for this committee and on behalf of the American people.

To Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri, as Mr. Mica has indicated, we have worked closely together on this legislation. As Chairman Oberstar stated, about 95 percent of what is in this bill was contained in the bill when the House passed it in September of 2007 by a vote of 267 Members passing the legislation. It truly was a bipartisan piece of legislation.

The bill provides increased funding levels, as Chairman Oberstar indicated, for the Airport Improvement Program, for the facilities and equipment program, and for the FAA operations. The funds will help improve our airports, upgrade our facilities, and modernize our air traffic control system.

In addition, we provide a consumer protection provision in this bill that forces airports and airlines to come up with an emergency contingency plan, and we install a consumer hotline for consumers to call the FAA for any complaints that they may have and any violations of the emergency contingency plans filed by the airports and airlines. For any violations, there are civil penalties.

It does establish a process to settle a labor dispute between the FAA and the controllers, and it takes steps to move us forward in upgrading our ground-based radar system to the next generation ATC.

The United States, I think we have to continue to point out, has the safest aviation system in the world; but in order to maintain that system and improve it, we need to pass this reauthorization bill. Let me make just a few comments regarding a few items that Mr. Mica mentioned.

Number one, the NATCA issue with the air traffic controllers. There is a process that is moving forward now with this administration. We hope that negotiations are successful, and we hope that there is a voluntary agreement. However, this bill does not contain provisions dealing with compensation. Congress is not dictating to either the administration or to anyone what wages should be, nor do we address that in our bill at all. It has everything to do with the process, and nothing to do with salaries and benefits.

Number two, it deals with in fact two fundamental principles: the rights of workers and the right to collectively bargain. So if, in fact, you believe in collective bargaining, you will support the provisions in this bill, as we did through committee and we did in 2007.

Secondly, as far as two issues concerning the foreign repair stations, I think Chairman Oberstar addressed that issue, but let me just comment that I probably have more workers in my district that work in repair stations, domestic repair stations, than any other district in the country. If I thought for a moment that this was a job killer, the fact that we insist that we have two inspections per year, on ground, in person, inspections on foreign repair stations, if I thought that would jeopardize the jobs that I have in my district or any place in this country, I certainly would not be supporting the provision in the bill. It is not a job killer. We have the right in the Congress and this legislative body under the agreements that we have with the European Union and others to move forward and insist that we have inspections of these foreign repair stations so that we can protect the American people. It is a safety issue.

And with that, let me just conclude by saying this is a good bill. We are 2 years behind in passing this legislation. We appreciate the support and the bipartisan relationship in working together on this bill. We look forward to passing this bill today and then working with our colleagues in the other body to get an agreement so we can get a bill on the President's desk.

Mr. Chair, today is an important day for the future of our aviation system. We are considering H.R. 915, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009''. This comprehensive bill would provide approximately $70 billion to modernize our air traffic control system, fund airport development, research programs, small community service and Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, operating expenses. H.R. 915 was produced after many hearings, in-depth analysis, and a continued dialogue with the FAA, our colleagues, and stakeholders.

Mr. Chair, this legislation is now almost two years behind schedule. In September 2007, the House approved a similar bill with a few additions, H.R. 2881, by a vote of 267 to 151. However, the reauthorization process has been bogged down because of inaction by the other body. Since that time we have been acting under short-term funding extensions and continuing resolutions that are delaying key Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, and airport capital development projects.

Although there are a few contentious issues that have marked this reauthorization process, virtually the entire aviation community-- airlines, airports, general aviation, state aviation officials--have communicated to us in a unified voice the need to get a multi-year reauthorization bill done as soon as possible.

The FAA forecasts that the airlines are expected to carry more than 1 billion passengers in 2021, up from almost 760 million in 2008. To deal with this growth, strengthen our economy, and create jobs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 provides historic funding levels for FAA's capital programs. This includes $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, nearly $13.4 billion for FAA Facilities & Equipment, and $1 billion for Research, Engineering, and Development. The bill also provides $39.3 billion for FAA Operations over the next four years.

These funding levels will accelerate the implementation of NextGen, enable the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment, improve airport development, and provide for the implementation of high-priority safety-related systems.

H.R. 915 also changes the organizational structure of the FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office, JPDO, the body charged with planning NextGen. To increase the authority and visibility of the JPDO, H.R. 915 elevates the Director of the JPDO to the status of Associate Administrator for NextGen within the FAA, to be appointed by, and reporting directly to, the FAA Administrator. To increase accountability and coordination of NextGen planning and implementation, H.R. 915 requires the JPDO to develop a work plan that details, on a year-by-year basis, specific NextGen-related deliverables and milestones required by the FAA and its partner agencies.

Like the 2007 bill, we increase the passenger facility charge cap from $4.50 to $7.00 to help airports that choose to participate in the PFC program meet their capital needs. According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting a $4.00 or $4.50 PFC raised its PFC to $7.00, it would generate approximately $1.3 billion in additional revenue for airport development each year which strengthens our economy and creates additional jobs at a time when both are critically needed. H.R. 915 provides significant increases in AIP funding for smaller airports that rely on AIP for capital financing. The ability to raise the PFC and the increase in AIP funding provides financing for airport capital development that will help reduce delays.

The bill also dramatically increases funding for and improves the Essential Air Service program and reauthorizes the Small Community Air Service Development program through 2012.

To prevent another ``meltdown'' of the aviation system like what we saw during the summer of 2007, when the system was fraught with congestion, delays and poor customer service, H.R. 915 mandates that air carriers and airports create emergency contingency plans that are approved and enforced by the Department of Transportation, DOT. This legislation also requires the DOT to publicize and maintain a hotline for consumer complaints; expand consumer complaints investigated; require air carriers to report diverted and canceled flight information monthly; and create an Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. H.R. 915 also requires DOT to conduct schedule reduction meetings if aircraft operations exceed hourly capacity and are adversely affecting national or regional airspace. Finally, H.R. 915 also provides civil penalties for violations.

Here at home and across the globe, more is being done to reduce energy consumption and emissions. The aviation community continues to be a leader in greening its operations. We further those efforts by establishing the CLEEN Engine and Airframe Technology Partnership and the Green Towers Program, which was modeled after what is currently being done at O'Hare International Airport.

The United States has the safest air transportation system in the world; however, we must not become complacent about our past success. To keep proper oversight on safety at FAA, H.R. 915 directs the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors, initiates studies on fatigue, and requires the FAA to inspect part 145 certified foreign repair stations at least twice a year. We also provide $46 million over four years for runway incursion reduction programs; $325 million over four years for runway status lights; and require the FAA to submit a strategic runway safety plan to Congress.

Combined with the tax title from Ways & Means, H.R. 915 does not impose new fees on airspace users. This concept has generated tremendous controversy and, frankly, has helped to seriously delay the reauthorization process. Instead, H.R. 915 would adjust the general aviation, GA, jet fuel tax rate from 21.8 cents per gallon to 35.9 cents per gallon, and the aviation gasoline tax rate from 19.3 cents per gallon to 24.1 cents per gallon.

We believe that Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues, coupled with additional revenue from the recommended GA fuel tax rate increases, and a reasonable General Fund contribution, will be sufficient to provide for the historic capital funding levels required to modernize the air traffic control system.

There are two provisions in the H.R. 915 that I believe are necessary for improving morale at the FAA; providing fair bargaining rights to employees of the FAA and at all express carriers; and helping to maintain safety in our aviation system.

The first provision requires that if the FAA and one of its bargaining units do not reach agreement during contract negotiations, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services are used or another agreed to alternative dispute resolution process; this process applies to the ongoing dispute between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, NATCA, and the FAA. This legislation sends the FAA and NATCA back to the bargaining table where the FAA declared an impasse. It calls for $20 million in backpay and calls for binding arbitration if the FAA and NATCA cannot reach an agreement. These are the same provisions that were in H.R. 2881 that passed the House during the 110th Congress.

I have spent many hours trying to bring both sides together to work out their differences. Chairman Oberstar and I have convened countless meetings between the FAA and NATCA in hopes of reaching a voluntary agreement. I know Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri have also spent time on this issue.

Unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached and that left us with only one clear course of action--binding arbitration.

I strongly believe in collective bargaining and bargaining in good faith with a fair dispute resolution process for both sides. Unfortunately, that did not happen in 2006 and we corrected that wrong in the T&I Committee by adopting the Costello amendment with a strong bipartisan vote of 53-16. This amendment is included in H.R. 915 and will ensure fair treatment of FAA employees.

I am pleased Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has appointed former Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey to oversee a team of mediators to immediately address the contract dispute between the Federal Aviation Administration and National Air Traffic Controllers Association. President Obama has shown great leadership that will guide a positive way forward in which aviation safety professionals will be included as valued stakeholders.

The second provision provides consistency in collective bargaining rights throughout the express carrier industry by allowing ground handling and trucking workers to organize under the National Labor Relations Act, which allows for organization at the local level. Those workers who are directly involved with the aircraft operation portion of those companies, like pilots and mechanics, would continue to be under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act. This is consistent with how UPS is structured today and is identical to the provision in

Mr. Mica, let me just say that when you state that Midcoast Aviation will lose 1,300-and-something jobs, you're supposing a lot of things will happen here. There is no evidence at all that any repair station in this country will lose one job. You suppose that there will be retaliation. You suppose that it will break an agreement that we have with the European Union, and, in fact, it does not, and I think Chairman Oberstar made that clear.

So I think we could stand here tonight or today and say that if this airline went bankrupt or if this business went bankrupt, so many jobs would be lost, or certain action was taken toward a company, that these jobs would be lost. But there's a lot of things that have to happen before one job is lost.

And as I said earlier, and I will repeat again, if I thought for a minute that either the repair station in my district, and there is more than one, or the repair stations in any district in the country would suffer as a result of this, I would not be supporting the provision.

I would ask you, Mr. Mica: In the figures that you were using from Midcoast Aviation and all of the other figures you just said, 7,000 and something jobs in Democrat districts on the Aviation Subcommittee, are you assuming that all of those facilities will close, that they will completely shut down and that every job will be lost?

I yield to the gentleman.

I understand.

Reclaiming my time.

Meaning, for every single person employed at Midcoast Aviation and for every facility on the list, if our European friends retaliate, all of those facilities are going to shut down, and everybody is going to lose their jobs? Is that what you're saying?

You're listing the number of people who work at those facilities?

Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. I rise in support of the manager's amendment. Let me address a couple of issues that my friend, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Mica spoke about as far as the agreement that we have and the foreign repair stations--the mandate that we inspect those repair stations at least twice a year.

Number one, the FAA not only has a right, but they have a responsibility to the flying public in the United States not only to inspect those repair stations when there is a problem or a complaint or an issue that is brought up, but they have a responsibility to inspect those repair stations and make sure that all of the repair stations both here in the United States and abroad are meeting the FAA regulations.

I wonder if the groups and organizations who wrote letters in opposition

to this read the Department of Transportation Inspector General's report where, and I quote, ``The DOT inspector general stated that foreign inspectors oftentimes do not provide the FAA with sufficient information to determine the items inspected, problems discovered, and corrective actions taken.''

The report goes on to say, ``In the files that the Department of Transportation inspector general reviewed, the inspection documents provided to the FAA were incomplete or incomprehensible 88 percent of the time, hampering the FAA's ability to verify the inspections conducted on its behalf adhered to FAA safety standards.''

So let me just say that for those who are concerned about this requirement of having two physical inspections of foreign repair stations, this is the same language that was in the bill that was passed by this House by a vote of 267 Members in favor of the legislation. It is the exact same language--to have two inspections per year of foreign repair stations.

The final point that I would make is we, again, in this legislation provide additional funding to the FAA to hire additional inspectors to carry out these inspections.

I thank Chairman Oberstar again. Mr. Petri, I would just finally say again that we have the Department of Transportation inspector general report. We understand that there are a number of inspections that take place by other agencies outside of the FAA.

But let me again read to you from the Department of Transportation inspector general. ``In the files that the DOT IG reviewed, the inspection documentation provided to the FAA was incomplete or incomprehensible 88 percent of the time, hampering the FAA's ability to verify that inspections conducted on its behalf adhered to FAA safety standards.''

What we are simply saying is that we want the FAA to go to foreign repair stations and physically inspect them twice a year. And we are saying to our friends in Europe if they want to inspect repair stations that they are using here in the United States twice a year, or more than twice a year, they are more than welcome to do that.

We believe that we have the right--not only the right, but an obligation to the flying public to require these inspections.

I would also finally note we're talking about agreements that were negotiated by the past administration with our friends in Europe, and the past administration did not consult the Aviation Subcommittee or the Transportation Committee or the Congress when they negotiated these agreements.

So we believe this is a reasonable thing to do. It was in the last bill that passed the Congress in September, 2007; 267 Members voted in favor of that bill with this provision in it. And we believe that it is the right thing to do and a reasonable thing to do, and it's an obligation we have to ensure the safety of the flying public.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Let me say that you have made a very strong case, and we accept your amendment.

I thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.

The point that I would make about the passenger facility charges is exactly the point that Chairman Oberstar just made. It is permissive. It is up to the local airport authority. And if, in fact, there is a passenger facility charge collected, it stays there at the local airport.

Mr. PAYNE: Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Burgess amendment to ensure whistleblower protection for FAA employees, and I commend Dr. Burgess for offering this amendment. I have been deeply disturbed at the situation at Newark Liberty International Airport in my congressional district of Newark, New Jersey. The safety concerns raised by a number of our air traffic controllers, the professionals we rely on to get us safely to and from our destinations, have been virtually ignored.

We have a situation where wrong turns caused by pilots' confusion over the FAA's new procedure have resulted in near-collisions. Yet, when the air traffic controllers have expressed alarm, the response of FAA management has been to retaliate against the employees who are trying to guard the safety of the flying public. Let me also add that I am disappointed that New Jersey communities, especially those in Essex and Union counties in my congressional district, are being forced to bear an unfair share of the noise burden under the airspace redesign plan. I hope that the new FAA administrator will address both the whistleblower protection issue and the need to reexamine the airspace redesign plan.

I ask the gentleman to yield.

The gentleman has made a strong case. We accept the amendment, and we will submit a statement in the Record.

I claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we commend the gentlewoman on her amendment. We accept it and yield back the balance of our time.

I thank my colleague from Florida, the senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for yielding me this time.

In September of 2007, we passed a bill very similar to the one that we are considering today. Unfortunately, the Senate never acted so we find ourselves once again trying to enact a much-needed authorization bill. In the meantime, the program continues to operate under a series of extensions, the most recent one expiring September 30 this year.

While the current economic downturn has alleviated some of the delays in congestion and complaints of the flying public, we know that once the economy recovers the system will again feel overwhelming strain. So the urgency for this legislation remains.

The American Society of Civil Engineers issues an infrastructure report every so often, and the most recent 2009 report card gives aviation a grade of only a D. This is actually a lower grade than the D-plus earned in the 2005 report card. So the condition of our aviation infrastructure is getting worse here in the United States, not better.

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 $16.2 billion over 4 years. The Facilities and Equipment Program is increased to $13.4 billion.

It also increases the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety projects. The cap was last raised 9 years ago, and the $4.50 maximum charge is now worth far less due to high construction costs and inflation.

One of the most important initiatives under way at the FAA is something known as NextGen to modernize the air traffic control system. We need to move away from a 50-year-old ground-based system to one that is modern, satellite-based, and which will increase the capacity of the system, lower costs, and increase safety. The bill before us will move that modernization process forward.

Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of other provisions, too numerous to enumerate, in this bill that will improve the aviation system in this country and which I strongly support.

However, as occurred last Congress, I am in the rather odd position of voting ``no'' on final passage for my subcommittee's bill. Back in the last Congress, the committee leadership worked together on a bipartisan basis to craft and introduce a good bill. But since that time, and continuing in this new bill, various provisions have been added which make it impossible for me at this time to support the bill.

One provision is regarding air traffic controllers. Part of the provision putting changes in future impasse procedures I do not object to, but it also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay under terms of the 1998 contract, which was estimated to cost the taxpayers some $1 billion over the life of the bill.

The second provision provides that we would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act of the National Labor Relations Act, which is really directed at just one company, and that is Federal Express; and, really, I don't think that should be included in this legislation. I think we'll hear more about that from other Members.

Other provisions raise concerns, such as the foreign repair station language which could have unintended consequences as far as trade relations with Europe are concerned, and another that would automatically sunset airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after the enactment of this legislation, which again could set in train consequences we cannot understand at this time.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank Chairman Oberstar; my chairman, Jerry Costello; Ranking Member Mica, and certainly the staff on the committee for their dedicated work on this bill. And in conclusion, while I support the general goal and the overwhelming majority of this bill, I do not support it at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.

Thank you.

While there are clearly many useful provisions in the manager's amendment which we do support, there are, unfortunately, several which we do not. And the most important, or one of the important areas has been mentioned on a number of occasions already on this floor as we've gone forward, and that's the foreign repair station inspection language.

The manager's amendment continues to require twice annual inspections of repair stations in Europe. What does this mean? It means that the European Union will and does oppose this provision and has suggested that the provision will nullify the need for the bilateral aviation safety agreement. It certainly violates the spirit of the United States-European Union Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement.

Under that agreement in section 15, countries are always allowed to inspect the other country's territory based on safety concerns. So there is flexibility and this is within the letter of the law of the treaty, as the chairman has pointed out. But it's certainly not within the spirit of the treaty. Our government is never going to concede jurisdiction over safety of American equipment and people and planes. And if there is a legitimate reason to inspect, we reserve the right to do it under that treaty. But not just automatic inspections whether there is any reason or not, which is what the amendment provides for.

This section 15 provides for inspection, but it does not envisage twice-annual inspections absent a legitimate risk-based safety concern. And that's the logic of the language of the treaty. If we don't abide by the spirit of the treaty, the EU has--and I believe will--walk away from the bilateral agreement and we will have to renegotiate another agreement which may end up giving us less, rather than more, flexibility to inspect when we determine based on information or concerns that have come forward that a particular inspection of a particular facility is warranted, which we have the right to do at any time under this treaty.

The Europeans do not have the personnel to conduct--well, I don't think our government has the personnel currently to inspect all of the stations that would be required to be inspected. And so we would revoke the certificates for repair stations that are not inspected and the Europeans would not be able to do that in our country. The result would be that a lot of work--all around, both parties to the agreement--would be moved around, at least; and the net loss, so far as between the United States and Europe is concerned would, it's my understanding, fall on American stations because currently a lot of European equipment is in fact maintained here in the United States. That's where the threat to the jobs comes from.

The provisions in the amendment having to do with inspection of stations is opposed by the airline industry; the aviation associations that have looked at it; the United States Chamber of Commerce; airline manufacturers; as I mentioned, the European Union; and some 50 of our colleagues, who signed a letter in opposition, I think probably inspired by concern about the jobs in their district at repair stations and dislocation of work at these stations, particularly the smaller ones, that was circulated by our colleague Mr. Barrow.

There are a number of other concerns about the amendment, particularly some concerns about the clarity of the whistleblower amendments and how those would actually be put into effect. Also, a concern about realignment and consolidation language which ties the FAA's hands.

The major concern we have, as I said, is especially in these tense times, where a small match could ignite a big fire in terms of trade relations. We are really playing with fire in the language that's contained in the manager's amendment having to do with inspection on a mandatory basis twice a year of all of these repair stations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to speak for a brief moment on a comment my colleague just made, and that is there is a bit of an impression being left that if we don't have these two inspections a year of these foreign European repair stations, they won't be inspected.

They are inspected. In fact, in a number of jurisdictions, the standards that are imposed on these facilities by the European Union and the governments and jurisdictions in which they exist are stricter than our own standards are.

So we do reserve the right now to inspect those stations if there is a problem. But to go ahead and require two inspections a year of stations that are already inspected by standards that we have concluded after experts have looked at it are perfectly adequate is really setting up a dynamic which will end up being disruptive to the industry and to good cooperative relations with our European allies.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand that since the gentleman from Minnesota is amending the bill and I'm a member of the committee, I have the right to close.

The concern about this amendment is that we do have the ability to inspect if there's a reason now to inspect. It's very unlikely if this were to become law we would immediately have in place the inspectors necessary to inspect all of these European stations twice a year. As a result, the certification of many of them would be pulled. It would force retaliation by the Europeans on our own stations.

If it was a sincere amendment, it would provide that it not go into effect until the government had an opportunity to inspect all of these stations twice. And it does not do that. We know how effective government is. It will take them years to man up and find all of these European stations. And so we oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague Chris Lee from New York for yielding and rise in support of his amendment. It's an important step to prevent similar accidents in the future. It is something that we need to do, and I very much appreciate his offering the amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with concerns about the amendment.

I think we can all agree that notifying passengers of their flight's status is quite important. But I would like to express a number of concerns about the amendment. It's an important area, and we would like to work on it, but we want it to be an effective amendment that would not have unintended consequences. So it is in that spirit that I express concerns about the amendment.

We worry that the amendment will have negative, as I said, unintended consequences on some air carriers. Although it only applies to carriers that earn at least 1 percent of domestic passenger service revenue, this amendment will still affect many regional carriers that do not have the capability of carrying out the mandates of the amendment. The vast majority of regional carriers do not issue tickets. This is done by their mainline air partner. Thus, these regional carriers do not even have their passengers' contact information, making the requirement impossible to adhere to by them. They would have to be relying on their mainline partner.

The Regional Airline Association believes that this amendment, as currently written, would require a fundamental restructuring of the contracts and partnership language between the regionals and the mainline carriers that could affect the relationships in a number of ways.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in working as we go forward to refine this amendment so that it

achieves its intended notification to passengers without economically damaging consequences on the balance of power between the small regionals and the mainline partners that they have.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

We're just raising questions. We agree the amendment is an important one, and it addresses a real need. We just want it not to have the unintended consequence of benefiting the mainline ticket processing operations at the expense of the small regional carriers which, if it was a mandate, it might have the effect of doing. It is not the intention of it, but it would be an unintended consequence because these people would need to get the information to comply from someone else, and that person, foreseeably, could affect the contract relationship.

With the assurance of the chairman, at this time we would be happy to see the amendment move forward, knowing that it will be refined as we go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The amendment affirms the sense of Congress that whistleblowers at the FAA should be fully protected by law, and we support the amendment.

The amendment that the gentleman offered would help restore confidence in the public's mind that the projects and programs included in the authorization bill are for the public benefit.

I would like to thank you for offering the amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

The amendment he has offered supplements a Department of Transportation Inspector General study on flight delays and cancellations in the base bill by adding to the Inspector General's review a requirement to assess the effect limited air carrier service options has on the frequency of delays and cancelations on such routes.

This is a useful amendment and important to many service airports in our country, and I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Well, I was going to rise in opposition, even though I don't oppose the amendment either. We would support the amendment and urge its speedy passage.

This amendment seeks to improve aviation safety by requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on FAA oversight of programs intended to prevent or mitigate the dangerous effects of smoke in airline cockpits.

Cockpit smoke can occur due to a variety of reasons, some which are not always imminent threats.

While the FAA has approved several technologies to deal with cockpit smoke, such as specially designed pilot goggles, not every technology is appropriate for all types of aircraft or pilot skill levels. The study proposed by Ms. Kilroy's amendment will assist FAA in determining the most smoke mitigation technology for various operators and aircrafts.

I thank my colleague for her efforts to improve aviation safety and ask all Members to support this amendment.

I would like to give my hardworking and conscientious colleague from New Jersey every assurance that I will work with him.

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

Thank you again for the opportunity to rise today and speak about a very important piece of legislation, and that is reauthorization of our Federal Aviation Administration operations.

Americans take for granted sometimes the ability to have the best, the largest, and the most accessible air transportation system in the world. But it is our job in Congress to make certain that that system is safe and that we also pass laws from time to time authorizing the policy, the projects, the funding, and other safety measures that are important for that system.

I want to speak in favor of enacting good reauthorization. At the end of the day, I will not vote in support of this particular measure because I do have some concerns that I will briefly outline.

First, let me say that I have enjoyed my working relationship with Mr. Oberstar. He chairs the committee, and I try to work with him in a bipartisan manner to make certain that our key responsibilities, like this important safety air industry legislation, passes Congress, and I will continue to do that.

I do have some concerns about some specifics. The bill does have some very good provisions. And Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Petri, our ranking member, have all worked hard to do the best they can in looking out for our current system, making certain that it is sound, making certain that there is funding in place and making certain that we have what we call ``NextGen,'' next generational air traffic control, in the system for the future, and that bill does take us a long way towards those positive efforts.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of provisions that we haven't reached agreement on. And I have been married 37 years. Almost every other day my wife and I have a disagreement on something. So it is not a big deal to have disagreement. Hopefully we can work some of these problems out.

What concerns me are, first of all, the labor provisions that were included in this bill. Now, as we know, we had a difficult situation with the air traffic controllers' contract. It expired. It was being negotiated. They couldn't reach an agreement some years ago. They sent it to Congress. We don't want it in Congress. It caused a great deal of conflict and problems. We shouldn't be the arbiters of these labor negotiations. And I will say that President Obama has stepped forward. He has set in motion a mechanism to resolve this pending impasse. I support his efforts.

By I believe June 5, if we don't reach negotiations, this issue will go to binding arbitration. I support binding arbitration. I support taking this out of the realm of Congress. But I think it was wrong to include that provision here when we are in the middle of negotiations that our new President is trying to get going and get this issue behind us and resolve. So this sets a horrible precedent for Congress to be dictating here, at this point, with this new President, these terms which do have a $1 billion-plus price tag and do set a standard of unfairness. Not only are there 15,000 air traffic controllers who should be treated fairly, but then we have 20,000 other FAA employees who should be treated fairly and hundreds of thousands of hard-working Federal employees who should be treated fairly, not Congress dictating a special level of compensation or some deal for a smaller group. So this does have consequences. And I'm disappointed that

that remains. I'm supportive of taking this away from Congress in the future and sending it to compulsory arbitration.

Unfortunately, there are two job killers in this bill. At a time when there isn't a Member of Congress that isn't getting a heartfelt request that someone is losing their job, they are losing their home, or they are not able to live the American Dream, unfortunately, this bill has two job-killer provisions.

First is a very controversial, and I know that Mr. Oberstar tried to explain this in his particular provision that he has put in here, requirement that the FAA make biennial inspections of all foreign repair stations. It sounds good. The only problem is that we already have existing agreements in place that that provision would supersede. We are negotiating now a treaty which also, the provisions the way they are written, would impose sanctions on us and cost us jobs.

Now, that is not what John Mica is saying. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that, as written, the bill jeopardizes 129,000 jobs. And we will put that in the Record a little bit later.

The National Association of Manufacturers, not John Mica, says retaliation threat from the EU is real and we must work together to maintain our working partnerships and preserve jobs. Again, they say it is a job killer.

Then I have a whole list of companies. They are in everybody's district, I could go on and on, Rockwell Collins, Boeing, Gulfstream, GE. Here is just one. GE sent a letter to Mr. Oberstar and me regarding how much this will cost in each of these stations. Now I don't mind spending money for safety. I don't mind imposing regulations or laws for safety. But this is a step backward, and it is a step away from what we should be doing, rather than saying on every Tuesday in the sixth month that we should be in Amsterdam inspecting, or we should be in London inspecting, or we should be in Ireland inspecting, or in Berlin inspecting, as this bill requires, twice-year annual inspections even to countries that we have already got agreements that we would have the same high standards and some of the countries have even higher standards imposed, their own higher than the U.S.

So we take our limited resources and we do these mandated inspections whether or not we need them. And our whole system in this country we changed some years ago for our large aircraft was to get away from that. We are risk based, and that is why we are the safest aviation industry in the United States. Yes, we have problems with commuters. And we should be using some of our resources to enhance the training, the requirements, and the inspections of the commuters where we are having crashes. We can't let up in any area. But we are diverting resources by this and going back to a system that did not work.

So not only does this I think impair safety, it also is a job killer.

The second and last thing that I am concerned about is 95 percent of this bill, we said in the Rules Committee, is pretty much the same bill we had last time. Added to this bill, and again I don't know why, is a provision that would sunset airline antitrust immunity. Unfortunately, this bill, and it is not what Mica says again, here is the Air Transport Association. This bill could cost as many as 15,000 airline jobs. Again, this is what is said by those who are in the industry. And this is a second job killer provision. This was not in the original bill. It has been added here.

And more troubling is that this provision would also automatically invalidate all antitrust immunity grants to airline alliances 3 years after the enactment of this bill. It is not necessary. It shouldn't have been added in this bill.

There are several other provisions that are controversial. We can work through this, and we need to work through this. This is the longest period that I can remember in the history of my service, and maybe Congress, that we have not had an FAA reauthorization. Hopefully we will also have in the next few days the President's designee for FAA Administrator. We haven't had one there. The other side of the Congress has not acted the way it should in promptly confirming an FAA Administrator. We all know how difficult it is when we have an Administrator in an agency to deal with him, and when you have no one in place for a long time we see some of the unfortunate results.

Those are some of my concerns and, again, I pledge to work with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Costello and others, and Mr. Petri, our ranking member. We're all committed to work. They all do a great job. We all have the interests and safety of the American public at heart.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, Mr. Petri.

Just for the record, I want to call to the attention of Members--and we will try to get this distributed today--this bill, the way it is written, voids the 2006 contract with the FAA and air traffic controllers, and it reinstates the generous terms and pay raises of the 1998 contract which had about a 70 percent pay increase. Today, at noon the Government Accountability Office released this report on the effects of pay and compensation, particularly for air traffic controllers and FAA employees, and this substantiates what I've said and also substantiates the very generous compensation that was provided under the terms of the 1998 contract. This bill interferes, again, with pending negotiations that the President has started, and we're hoping to resolve this matter.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), our distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and then I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Just 15 seconds to add in the Record that the repair station provision I will cite for different Members, in Mr. Costello's district, according to Midcoast Aviation, will cost us and kill 1,339 jobs.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 15 seconds.

So for 15 seconds, I see Ms. Johnson in the Chamber, and her district, I have the list of aviation centers in her district that will lose a total, or could lose a total of 1,735 job. Again, job-killer provisions in this legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I see in the Chamber, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cohen. And while he has some provisions in this that will do much damage to his district, the repair station job-killer provision will kill, could kill 218, I have a list of the companies, high-paying jobs.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

I would like to yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Then I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I had my staff compile the number of jobs that would be killed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members' districts. The previous speaker from Georgia represents probably one of the busiest airports and activities in the United States, and he has expressed concerns. I don't know how many jobs will be killed in his district. In Ms. Richardson's district in California, which is suffering from a downturn in the economy, they could lose 1,015 jobs.

I will yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Again, the figures that I'm using about the job-killing provisions, particularly on the repair station provision, are not my guesstimates. These are provided by industry.

I don't see Ms. Brown on the floor, but my colleague Ms. Brown and I share a district in Florida, its boundaries, and it's estimated that 935 jobs could be lost. This is when our area is suffering from 10 to 15 percent unemployment, and these are high-paying jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds.

Well again, I've talked about the job-killing provisions of the repair station mandate in this bill. On our small Aviation Subcommittee, it has the potential for killing 7,100 high-paying jobs in Democrat districts. This is an equal opportunity job killer because in Mr. Petri's district, a gentleman who is here in a Republican district, it could do away with 850 jobs. I also know Wisconsin needs those high-paying aviation industry jobs.

Well, first of all, we got the information both from the FAA and from industry.

We may lose that many jobs if there is retaliation.

Well, we're not certain, but again I'm telling you what the industry says. We have countless groups that have said that this is a job killer to the industry.

I don't know how many jobs will be lost.

I would like to yield 1 minute, if I may to Mr. Cohen.

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

Can I inquire as to the balance of time on both sides, please.

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

Again, we've worked hard. We have a common goal here. Mr. Oberstar cares deeply about the safety and viability of our American aviation industry.

Mr. Costello shares that concern, our chair of the Aviation Subcommittee. Mr. Petri, our ranking Republican. We have the leaders of aviation. When I came to Congress, Mr. Oberstar was the chairman at the Aviation Subcommittee. I had the opportunity for 6 years during a very difficult time in the history of the country from 2001 for 6 years to lead that committee.

Our interest is safety. Now, there are very good provisions in this bill, and we've worked together to put them there. There are some hiccups here and some things we wish were not in the bill. I have great concern about this repair station provision and the jobs that it may kill. I don't know how many. All I have is the information. We took the information from the districts of just the members on the subcommittee, and it's 11,000. This is a bipartisan job-killing provision--11,442 just on our small subcommittee in Congress. We can't take that chance now.

Now, you heard Mr. Johnson, I believe, from Georgia talk about the antitrust provisions. And we're told by the Air Transport Association the job-killing potential of that antitrust provision that was not in the bill that was voted on by Congress last time, it's a new provision and a job-killing provision.

Our interest here is putting people to work and making this system safe, not doing away with jobs. So we've got to ensure that the provisions of this are sound for safety, sound for the current operations of our Federal Aviation Administration system, and sound, also, for the future.

With that, I pledge to work with my colleagues because this bill will probably pass today. I wouldn't want to go back during Memorial Day and say I voted, however, for a measure--and we just heard Mr. Cohen from Tennessee make a plea because this has job-killing provisions for him-- and say this may kill high-paying jobs in your district.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you.

Today Congress will vote on H.R. 915, which will reauthorize the funding and Safety Oversight Program of the Federal Aviation Administration for 4 years. This will cost the American taxpayers $70 billion. Yet again, another omnibus bill for yet another historic amount of money, and this time spent for the FAA. Where will this money come from? The money will not come from large commercial airlines. These fees will not be generated alone by labor and the efforts of big businesses. These fees will come from the average American already struggling to make ends meet. For instance, this bill will increase the Passenger Facility Charge on airline flights from $4.50 to $7. So every American flying will now have to pay $2.50 more for each trip. In these tough and trying economic times, every dollar counts. So how can we justify making our constituents and airline consumers pay more money to fly and visit their relatives?

This bill will also create new fees for registering an aircraft. A new fee for the issuance of aircraft certificates, a new fee for the issuance of special registrations, a new fee for recording security interests, and a new fee for legal opinions for aircraft registration or recordation. There is even a new fee for replacing or issuing airman certificates. It begs the question, what won't we be imposing a new fee upon?

At least with this bill, a vote for it will affect everyone. Everyday travelers, tourists, small businesses and large businesses alike will have their pocketbooks affected. I refer specifically to the language in this bill regarding the antitrust immunity sunset, which would terminate airline code-sharing alliance agreements between airlines and the United States Government. Most major U.S. airlines are members of one of three partnerships. They entered into these alliance agreements in the late eighties and the early nineties under both Republican and Democratic Presidential leadership, with full review of the U.S. Department of Transportation as well as the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Now it has been estimated that these airlines will lose almost $5 billion in 2009 alone due to the precipitous drop in passengers.

No. Let me continue because my time is short.

We are punishing the American consumer by increasing the Passenger Facility Charge, and now we're punishing the American consumer by inconveniencing their ability to book travel. I can only begin to imagine the increase in costs when we eradicate these alliances. However, there is one issue in the bill which is clearly bipartisan and which none of us would ever stand in disagreement upon, and that is the issue of safety.

Every citizen should be safe when they fly, and those who act to ensure our continued safety must be recognized and protected. If any element of safety is compromised, then we deserve to know.

The amendment I offer today does not give whistleblowers any new laws to pursue legal action. The amendment only proposes to preserve the laws that they already have and certainly not give them any less. They should not be faced with retaliatory firings. They should not have retribution taken in their private, non-work lives.

Individuals in the world of the Federal Aviation Administration should be able to speak up and speak out when safety is being compromised. Whether it is the Federal Government, a private company, or their fellow colleagues who compromise safety, these brave people are entitled to the full protection of the law when they inform the public as to how our safety is compromised.

In my district we have had several instances of constituents who have acted as whistleblowers. Some have had their claims fully investigated and overseen by the FAA. Some have not. Some have been punished for speaking out. Some have not. We must make certain that every whistleblower is treated fairly and equally. Each and every claim reported to the FAA should be properly reviewed. I asked in November of 2008 to conduct an oversight and investigations hearing focusing on whistleblowers.

I would like for this letter that I sent to my Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations to be included in the Record.

November 18, 2008.

Hon. Bart Stupak,

Chairman, Oversight and Investigations,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Stupak, When we spoke a few weeks ago, I

mentioned a situation relating to the Dallas-Fort Worth's

Terminal Radar Approach Control (DFW TRACON) that could place

the safety of the flying public at risk. I believe that this

issue should be of interest to you as Chairman of the Energy

and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation

Subcommittee as an example of how certain whistleblowers

courageously reported abuses of the public trust in an

attempt to change FAA's safety and management culture. If you

are contemplating a hearing during the 111th Congress

focusing on federal whistleblowers, I believe the addition of

any one of the brave Americans involved in this particular

situation would provide a valuable perspective.

This dangerous situation came to light when one of my

constituents, Anne Whiteman, raised concerns about the

Federal Aviation Administration management at DFW TRACON. Her

concerns were that senior managers and air-traffic

controllers intentionally misclassified near-miss events as

pilot error when in fact they were due to controller error in

order to avoid investigation of these incidents and potential

disciplinary action. The Office of the Inspector General at

the Department of Transportation, at the direction of the

Office of Special Council, initiated an investigation and in

April 2008 they concluded that Anne Whiteman's concerns were

well-founded. Their report confirmed that senior management

officials at the FAA jeopardized the safety of our citizens

by misclassifying air traffic events

merely so they could falsely improve their quality ranking.

As per DOT procedure, this report by the DOT's OIG was

referred to the Office of Special Counsel, and on November

14, 2008, they issued their report also finding Anne

Whiteman's facts to be reasonable. OSC found that the DFW

TRACON acted to systematically mischaracterize operational

errors as pilot errors. The OSC found this systematic

behavior directly resulted from a general lack of oversight

at the FAA and also made recommendations to mitigate and

avoid this type of situation in the future. I have included a

copy of the OSC final report and the OIG April 2008

Memorandum for your review.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. As

always, it is a pleasure working with you. Even though we do

not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, I know both you and

I share a desire to ensure that those entrusted with the

public's safety are held accountable.

Sincerely,

Michael C Burgess,

Member of Congress.

I wanted this Congress to look into how certain courageous whistleblowers report abuses of the public trust and how the FAA's safety and management culture responds.

Now, I am well aware that we have stopgap funding for the FAA. Perhaps as a result of this, the FAA has not had the time, the energy, or the resources to do proper oversight and investigations. Perhaps they have not had a chance to look into each and every whistleblower action. If this is the case, then the solution is not to create new laws, thus new actions for the FAA to undergo. The solution is not to give them unheard of amounts of money by taxing consumers.

Instead, let us give the FAA the resources they need to do the proper oversight and investigations and ensure that the safety of our citizens is our first and foremost concern. My amendment will recognize the role whistleblowers play in creating a safe flying environment, and I hope Members will join me in supporting their important role.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.