Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for extending me time on this FAA Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this may not come as a surprise to you or Members of this body, but once again we are here to discuss a bill on the floor that has come to the floor under a closed rule. We continue this process in this House of Representatives despite the promise from the majority that they would lead this floor with open and honest and ethical debate and, once again, this is neither open, and I do not believe it's an honest process if Members of this body are shut out day after day after day after day after day in the Rules Committee, Republicans and Democrats, who cannot come to this floor as a result of the Rules Committee action that we took yesterday. They are not even opening this process up to the Members. I think it's bad for this body, I think it's terrible for the Rules Committee and, even worse, I think, to extend the expectation that we would be open on this floor is a misnomer, and it has been for almost 4 years now.

This Democrat majority has not allowed for one open amendment process this entire legislative session, not one, not one, Mr. Speaker, and that's unprecedented. Last week, as we were up over the weekend Saturday in the Rules Committee for the important health care debate, Members came to the Rules Committee the entire day with over 80 Republicans amendments, presenting ideas, ideas that they had, some which were outstanding bills and some which were small and minor fixes.

Yet at the end of the day, before we voted on Sunday, gleefully the Rules Committee majority, including our chairwoman, gleefully announced all 80 Republican ideas were defeated, all 80 Republican ideas were slam dunk in the Rules Committee. All 80 Republican ideas that Members came to express themselves up on the floor, slam dunk, and gleefully the bill was held as is, no additional outside comment necessary, Democrats have it down. This has happened day after day, bill after bill.

We are here, Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives today, saying, again, that's not right. That's not the way to run this ship, this is not open, and this is not the process that should be followed.

So I guess that when the Speaker promised we are going to be the most open, the most honest, the most ethical Congress, I don't think she was referencing how she and our chairwoman would be running the Rules Committee or the legislation on this floor. Not only is this rule closed, but it allows for martial law authority, meaning that whatever the majority wants to do, they can do on this floor, all the way throughout the weekend, all the way into Monday.

The Rules Committee continues to shut out Republicans, our ideas, and to circumvent the rules that this committee has traditionally had simply to pursue an agenda. I believe last weekend, as thousands of people were outside trying to have their voices be heard, once again, this body did not listen to them and rejected their pleas, which really begs the question, I think, would the majority each time a bill comes up for consideration eliminate the amendment process from the debate?

Is that what they are afraid of? Are they afraid to debate these? Are they afraid to have Members like the gentleman, Mr. Mica, come and present his ideas, ranking member of the committee, a gentleman who has spent lots of time working with people to make this bill better?

What are they afraid of? Are they trying to protect their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the process? What is it that continues this process with not one open rule this legislative session? Oh, by the way, we are in the second session right now, this is the second year.

Today's closed rule is all about the Federal Aviation Administration, known as the FAA, and this is their reauthorization act. This bill would reauthorize the FAA for 3 more years. While U.S. air travel plays a fundamental role in our economy, and making safe provisions, a cornerstone of this legislation, is important, yet there are controversial provisions, including cost increases for passengers, excessive spending and labor negotiations, and job losses. Today I would like to talk about those parts of this bill that were not amended, do not allow for Member contest, for amendments.

Keeping up the tradition of Democratic Party spending, this bill authorizes $70 billion over 4 years. This is a historic level of funding for the FAA, which should come as no surprise from this Democrat-controlled Congress that has already set record levels of deficit and spending over the past 4 years and, once again, aiming for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, $200 billion worth of deficit last month alone.

This legislation reiterates the 1998 labor agreement between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA. This is a terrible precedent to have Congress interject itself in a current labor dispute, especially when it is on the back of the American taxpayer. According to CBO, this agreement is going to cost taxpayers $83 million this year and over $1 billion throughout the 4-year reauthorization. This bill puts funding for other important safety and air traffic control modernization programs at risk. Forget the negotiation--we will just take care of that here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Additionally, this legislation directs the FAA to conduct biannual inspections on all foreign repair stations. This completely disregards the bilateral safety agreements and invites foreign retaliation that threaten 130,000 American jobs at service stations. Mr. Speaker, why does this Democrat leadership continue to bring bills to the floor of the House of Representatives that threaten American jobs?

We should be all about ensuring that American jobs are taken care of, not putting them at risk. We have seen record unemployment over the last year. As a matter of fact, in the last year since President Obama has become our President, here in several months, we have doubled the amount of people who are unemployed in this country. More and more people are out of work every day directly because of the political agenda and will of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi on this floor of the House of Representatives with votes of Democratic Members.

Americans want jobs. We want a pro-growth strategy. We want to make sure and should be on this floor talking about being competitive with the world, not here trying to satisfy union concerns and raise taxes and diminishing more jobs and putting them at risk.

Despite the record unemployment and the 130,000 jobs this bill currently threatens, it goes one step further by invalidating all antitrust immunity grants to airline allowances 3 years after enacting their contracts. This will hurt U.S. carriers' competitiveness and threaten another 15,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, why would we want to become less competitive with other foreign nations? Why would this Congress want to place America in a defensive position against the things which have strengthened Americans' relationship with other countries and ensured, not just that we would get along, but American jobs in the process.

This legislation also increases the Passenger Facility Charge, known as the PFC for those of us who are regular travelers, up to $7 per flight. That is a 56 percent increase from the current allowable $4.50 per flight charge.

At a time when our airlines, not unlike all other areas of this economy, are struggling, we are now going to stick it to those who are flying to pay for these boondoggle expenses that I believe this Congress is creating. While the FAA says the fees are important to fund FAA-approved projects to enhance safety and security, what it's really all about is being able to pay for this union contract.

You know, these projects also include things like bike storage for passengers that are laid out in the bill, bike storage for passengers on airlines. I don't know about you, but I don't know how many passengers who bike to the airports with their luggage, but that's what we are going to do. We are going to go and make bicycle areas available at airports. That's just a lot of money, and it's a lot of wasted money that does not make sense at a time when we should be making tough decisions, not adding to the expense that is required at every airport in this country.

This reauthorization does very little to improve our Nation's air traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen. Despite concerns and growing congestion in our Nation's airspace, the bill does not provide a dedicated funding source, does not establish an air traffic control modernization board, and does not provide NextGen with needed borrowing authority, authority to be prepared for our future. Without proper funding and oversight, NextGen will fail to properly deploy the congestion in U.S. airspace, which is reaching critical levels, to ensure the safety areas are fully adopted to.

This legislation does include the bipartisan bill H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act, that passed the House of Representatives last year. This is a step in the right direction for the future safety of airline travel, ensuring our pilots have the appropriate screening and training that is necessary.

Over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, the President promised that unemployment would not reach 8 percent. Over 3 million Americans since then have lost their jobs. That was a promise. We have now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate and continue to hover well above the 8 percent that we were told would be the margin. Congress needs to stop the record spending, needs to focus on creating jobs, not diminishing them, as this bill threatens 130,000 jobs today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the ability to make progress in Congress, create jobs, and grow the economy. America should be called the ``Employer Nation,'' and, instead, this Congress fails to understand how jobs are formed through investment and reinvesting within businesses in this country.

We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system to become the global leader. We should not rely on governments to pull us out of this economic stumble that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, who is the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Mica.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I once again would like to thank the gentlewoman for the time she has extended to us. And I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Mica, for being here today on the floor.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the House is operating an unprecedented restrictive rules process, once again, continuing the 4 years, into our fourth year of this very interesting process to deny Members the opportunity to come and to place their ideas on this floor, to debate their ideas, and a chance to vote on them. I think it is a bad way to run the House.

Every time a rule is up, we get to say, Well, brand-new record. Brand-new record here for the House of Representatives.

I think you heard the frustration that came from a gentleman who has devoted his life, not only his career, to the transportation infrastructure areas of this country, but also the FAA and a lot of initiatives and ideas that he wishes he could have been a part of to make this better. But, once again, our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to work with the Republicans. They refuse to allow amendments or even a motion to recommit, and then given themselves martial law, same-day suspension authority, and other circumventing activities just to get their job-killing agendas through this House of Representatives.

If it weren't just job killing, it would be simple for the American people to understand, but it is also record taxing and spending. Big Government. Big Government, empowering government-types of rules and bills on this floor. And we oppose that.

If we continue to borrow, tax, and spend down this pathway that the Democrat majority has that we have been pursuing since 2007, we are going to keep finding that not only do we keep losing jobs, but our country functionally will be broke. Not just broken, but bankrupt-type broke. We are noncompetitive, and we are doing nothing to create competitiveness around this world. As a matter of fact, we are trying to play hardball with other countries.

No wonder this President is seen, and America is seen, in the world's eyes the way that we are. We are told that others diminished America's reputation, but what we are doing here today is just another opportunity to go stick our finger in the eye of our friends around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. We heard the gentleman from Florida say he is outraged. All we can do is that which is given to us. We will vote ``no.'' We will vote ``no'' on this rule. We will vote to try and gain some opportunity to where we can have balance back on this floor, and we will continue to stand up and talk about how we would like for this country to be an employer Nation.

We would like to have this Congress aim at its business and what it does, instead of part-time or summer jobs; full-time jobs, employment, and opportunity for the American people. We would like to see this Congress take on the opportunities to say that we recognize that the way we will have jobs is by lowering taxes and giving investors an opportunity, a chance to place their hard-earned money into the free enterprise system where jobs can be built and grown, an opportunity not to have the three largest political agenda items that this Democratic Party, this President Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi stand for, three major political items that would net lose this country 10 million jobs.

This last weekend as we were up in the Rules Committee, we were talking about the diminishment of jobs or the guess of diminishment jobs in this health care bill, and I stated what I believe was factually correct: around 4\1/2\ million jobs would be lost. And one of my Democratic colleagues yelled back, It's only 3 million jobs--only 3 million jobs are expected to be lost by this health care bill.

That is 3 million American jobs today that we are knowingly, willingly, voting to say, That's okay. We don't care about those jobs, because what we want to do is to take care of some 25 million people who do not have insurance coverage and are underinsured on health care today, and yet remaining another 25 million that are out there.

The cost-benefit ratios are staggering from this Democrat majority. It is staggering what we are doing to the free enterprise system, to families, to jobs, to people who want to have an opportunity to have a job, the dignity to take care of themselves. It's staggering to me the amount of debt, the amount of spending that takes place from this Democratic House of Representatives. It's staggering to me to see that this leadership and the votes that are made on this floor of the House of Representatives day after day are from our past and perhaps our future.

We don't even care if we read the bill. We don't care about the process. We care more about our political agenda, a political agenda about making government bigger, about bankrupting this

country, about taking jobs from American people, about the cavalier nature in which this is done.

And then we look at the opportunity as we go through the bill to see that this health care bill, and other bills like we are having here today, simply empower other people, bigger government: 16,000 new IRS agents will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is enforced.

It's these kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker, which Republicans and I believe others are raising about the leadership of Barack Obama and the leadership of Nancy Pelosi; and yet we look up and see day after day the votes that are on the floor.

Don't even worry about reading the bill. Let's just get this done: this is why we are having problems in this country. We should open up the process.

We should have open, honest, ethical debates. We should be willing to accept Republican ideas. We should not be gleeful when, Well, we reject it. Eighty Republican ideas. Job well done, Democratic team. Let's slam-dunk those Republicans. Let's not allow their ideas.

Mr. Speaker, for this country to work, and to work properly, it's going to take all of us working together, not just the Democrat majority because they have the votes to slam-dunk Republicans. We believe process is important. We believe ideas are important. We believe that the Republican Party has lots of ideas that we will continue to stand up for. We are an alternative party and we will continue to show up every day faithfully for the American people; faithfully to say that we believe in not only freedom and opportunity, but we believe in the free enterprise system and people to have the dignity of jobs.

And we are going to fight these job-killing Democrat ideas. We're going to fight these taxes and the spending that takes place, and we will make sure that the American people understand this is just another chance today to put America further and deeper into debt. It makes us sick to our stomach when we have to have Members who come and say, I was shut out of this process. No wonder I'm going to vote against this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1212 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1586, the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the Transportation Committee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title and concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. It provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion.

The rule provides the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules; and waives requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This requirement is waived through Monday, March 29.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused to the people of our area.

Yesterday morning, right here in the Capitol, I was privileged to meet with some of the victims' families. It is always a sobering experience to sit down with those brave souls and their efforts to fight for safer travel for the rest of us. Their great fight is a testament to their commitment and passion.

In fact, it is my sincere hope and prayer that once we finish this effort and make changes to the laws governing pilot safety that we can find a way to name it to honor the lost lives of this crash. I suggest calling this legislation the ``Buffalo Safety Act.'' I can think of no better way to mark the lessons we have learned as a Nation about

flight safety than honoring the people who died on that icy, snowy night.

The meeting I had yesterday morning centered on safety proposals and a discussion of how this legislation will eventually be implemented. We also talked with the Federal Aviation Administration about why it has to take so long before simple, commonsense changes can be made to the laws that govern how many hours a pilot flies, how they are trained and who is responsible for ensuring their flight records are not locked away in some box where nobody can assess their skills.

After last year's crash, I could hardly believe it when we learned that the pilot of Flight 3407 had failed five different tests, yet his employer only knew about two of those failures. Shouldn't a pilot's entire flying record be available to their employer? I think so. I know it would make me feel better about getting on a plane.

As you know, I have been fighting for a handful of specific and simple changes to current law. I believe that the regional pilots have to be paid better. Better compensation will help to make sure we get the best people in the cockpit. I was stunned to learn that the first officer of Flight 3407 was paid $16,000 a year. That is less than you would earn at a convenience store. Is that what we should pay people who we trust with our lives?

I am also worried about fatigue. A tired pilot is not at his or her best, and that is not acceptable. My proposal would call for a study by the National Academy of Science on this topic but would go further by tasking the FAA to rewrite many of the standards for pilots.

I would like to see pilots' flight records available so that everybody knows about the problems in their past flying experiences. Again, my plan would mandate that the General Accounting Office review this with an eye toward greater transparency.

I would like to see carrier maintenance of their aircraft, changes made to the cozy relationship that the FAA has with airlines, and some way to put real teeth into the recommendations that grew out of the horrific hearings last spring by the National Transportation Safety Board.

It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals.

Of course, the legislation that we are debating today is about much more. With this bill, we have essentially combined our pilot safety bill and the FAA authorization in one package.

It is my hope the Senate will do the right thing and allow us to go to conference where we can quickly and appropriately settle upon a compromise that allows us to turn this conversation into tangible improvements.

Besides the safety programs, this bill provides essential increases in aviation funding and safety improvements and invests in the Airport Improvement Program to help overcome congestion and delays.

The amendment we are considering today consists of the text of two bills that already have passed the House, H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009.

I urge my colleagues to come together with me to approve this rule. Let us move quickly to pass this amendment and send it to the Senate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to Mr. Sessions' comments on jobs, I would like to quote from this morning's Dallas Morning News and then submit the article for the Record. ``Jobs picture.'' I believe this is the gentleman's district. ``Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including the Dallas-Forth Worth area--will have made up for employment lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next year.''

``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs.''

The just-passed Federal health care legislation could add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one of the States with the highest percentage of consumers who have no health care insurance.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Mar. 24, 2010]

Moody's Experts Predict Texas Cities Will Lead the Recovery

(By Steve Brown)

Texas cities will outpace the rest of the country coming

out of the recession.

But that doesn't mean there won't be bumps in the road to

recovery, the folks at Moody's Analytics said Tuesday at

their annual Dallas economic confab.

There's still some bad news--more woes in store for the

battered real estate sector. But Moody's predicts that Texas

will find new jobs in health care, high tech and energy.

``This region really does lead the nation in terms of

recovery and will be one of the first regions to achieve a

new employment peak,'' Steven Cochrane, Moody's Analytics'

managing director, told more than 100 local businesspeople at

the session. ``The recession was just so shallow here because

the housing cycle was shallow.

``Income growth was more stable, and state fiscal

conditions are better,'' he said. ``There is a smaller hole

to dig out of.''

Jobs picture

Moody's is forecasting that most Texas markets--including

the Dallas-Fort Worth area--will have made up for employment

lost during the recession and be adding jobs by late next

year or early 2012.

``The central part of the country and all of Texas will be

among the first to reclaim all of its lost jobs,'' Cochrane

said.

The Dallas area is expected to increase employment by about

1.5 percent in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011.

Oil and gas and high tech will be among the sectors that

drive job creation in Texas during the next few years,

Moody's predicts.

The just-passed federal health care legislation could also

add significantly to the employment base, since Texas is one

of the states with the highest percentage of consumers who

lack medical insurance.

Big growth driver

``We will probably see this as a big growth driver in all

of the South long term,'' Cochrane said.

Moody's analysts aren't bullish about the country's housing

market. They expect further weakness this year and a slow

turnaround when it comes.

``Foreclosures are at best peaking now,'' Moody's Analytics

director Edward Friedman said. ``Maybe it will be another

three or for months before they finally peak completely, and

we see the true turnabout we need to believe the housing

market is headed on the right track.''

That's why Moody's is forecasting further declines in

nationwide home prices during the next six months. ``We think

another 5 or 10 percent,'' Friedman said.

The drag of housing

Unlike in most economic rebounds, the housing market will

continue to drag, he said.

``The housing sector--isn't that the sector that leads the

recovery?'' Friedman said. ``Not this time.''

Moody's estimates that U.S. households have lost almost $6

trillion in housing values during the recession.

``The rebound so far has only been in the stock market,''

Friedman said. ``You are not getting your housing

construction rebound.''

Texas home prices aren't likely to see much of a bounce

during the next couple of years, the analysts predict.

``Housing isn't a significant driver in the Texas economy

right now,'' Cochrane said.

Moody's also has red flags flying over the U.S. commercial

real estate market but doesn't think commercial price

adjustments will hurt the economy as badly as the housing

sector shakeout has.

``Nonresidential construction is pretty far down,''

Friedman said.

``How much further down could it go?''

I would also like to quote from an AP article this morning and then submit the article for the Record.

``The Labor Department said Thursday''--that's today--``that first- time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.''

As you recall, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of this session we inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we have moved steady, month by month, putting people back to work.

The next thing I'd like to report, ``Analysts forecast the Nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs in March,'' and, ``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling that . . . job creation is imminent,'' say the economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who wrote that before the Labor Department's report.

Unemployment Claims Drop by 14,000--Most of the Drop Pegged to

Adjustments in How Labor Department Calculates Claims

Washington, Mar. 25, 2010.--(AP) New claims for

unemployment benefits fell more than expected in the U.S.

last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims

for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally

adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of

450,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

But most of the drop resulted from a change in the

calculations the department makes to seasonally adjust the

data, a Labor Department analyst said. Excluding the effect

of those adjustments, claims would have fallen by only 4,000.

The department updates its seasonal adjustment methods

every year, and revises its data for the previous five years.

Seasonal adjustment attempts to filter out expected changes

in employment such as the layoff of temporary retail

employees after the winter holidays. The goal of seasonally

adjusted figures is to provide a more accurate picture of

underlying economic trends.

Excluding seasonal adjustment, initial claims fell by more

than 30,000 last week to 405,557.

The four-week average of claims, which smooths volatility,

dropped by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 453,750, the

department said, the lowest since September 2008, when the

financial crisis intensified.

Initial claims have fallen in three of the past four weeks,

wiping out most of the increase that took place in the first

two months of this year. That increase early in the year

stoked worries among economists that improvement in the job

market was stalling.

First-time claims were elevated last month by severe

snowstorms on the East Coast, which caused backlogs in many

state offices that fell behind in processing claims.

Many economists say claims need to fall below roughly

425,000 to signal that the economy will consistently create

jobs, though

some say it could happen with claims at higher levels.

Analysts forecast the nation will gain more than 150,000 jobs

in March, partly due to temporary hiring for the Census. The

March figures will be reported April 2.

``We believe that the trend in initial claims is signaling

that . . . job creation is imminent,'' economists at Bank of

America Merrill Lynch wrote before the Labor Department's

report.

Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of

layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire

new workers.

The number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment

benefits, meanwhile, fell to 4.6 million.

But that doesn't include millions of people who are

receiving extended benefits for up to 73 extra weeks, paid

for by the federal government, on top of the 26 customarily

provided by the states. Nearly 5.7 million people were on the

extended benefit rolls for the week ended March 6, the latest

data available. That is about 300,000 lower than the previous

week. The extended benefit figures aren't seasonally adjusted

and are volatile from week to week.

All told, more than 11.1 million people are claiming

unemployment benefits, the department said.

I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1212, I call up the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1586.

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

This procedure under which we are acting on this bill is complex and has raised some concerns both in the Rules Committee and in discussion of the rule, so I just want to clarify some things.

The rule states in part: to concur in the Senate amendment to the title of H.R. 1586 which deals with additional tax bonuses on TARP recipients. This is a tax bill that the House had passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate is amending that tax bill, taking everything out and substituting its version of the FAA authorization bill. We then, under the rule, concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules which is the text of the bill that we have twice passed in this House in two Congresses.

It is not something new. It is not a freestanding bill coming to the floor for the first time and should not be nor has it been subjected to an open rule which was requested in the Rules Committee and which was again debated on the House floor during consideration of the rule.

This is the bill we passed first in September, on September 20, 2007, by a vote of 267-151, including four Republican and four Democratic amendments. It was not adopted in that Congress.

We took it up again in 2009, passed the bill May 21 last year by an even

bigger vote, 277-136, including seven Democratic and four Republican amendments. We also include in this bill the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Act of 2009, overwhelmingly approved in the House by a vote of 409-11, not acted upon by the other body. So we are combining these bills and sending them back to the Senate which then we expect will ask for a conference.

Now, we have heard discussion and I heard some rather fomenting sounds during consideration of the rule about, well, we haven't passed this aviation authorization bill in years. We would have passed it in 2007 but for the Statement of Administration Policy September 19, 2007, from the Bush administration that said: Accordingly, if H.R. 2881 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

It passed the House notwithstanding.

But because of the threat of the administration veto, the other body, narrowly divided, didn't even take it up. We did our work in good order, in reasonable order, very quick from the time the gavel was handed over to Speaker Pelosi at the beginning of the 110th Congress and we regained the majority. We picked up where we left off in the previous Congress with the Republican members of our committee and moved the bill with bipartisan support except for three issues. And on one of those, the administration threatened a veto, the negotiation/ renegotiation of the air traffic controller contract.

The new administration came in and settled that issue. It is gone. It is done. The language is still in the bill because we passed that bill before the administration settled the air traffic controller contract. So the language stays in the bill, but it will come out in conference, at least that part of it.

So I don't understand this revisionism that I heard on the House floor during the debate on the rule. It is wrong. It doesn't represent the issues properly. It doesn't put them into focus. We are going to pass this legislation today. The Senate will then ask us for a conference in due course, and we will go to conference on this bill. And we will resolve whatever the differences are, and there are several of them, between our version and the Senate version. That is the process.

I just want to make it very clear that is what we are here discussing today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before the gentleman concludes, Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for just a moment?

The gentleman referred, Mr. Speaker, to the provision in the bill that covers the air traffic controller contract. The gentleman is aware that has been resolved and settled, and in my remarks I said that is a provision that we have already agreed that would be dropped because it's no longer necessary.

I now yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who has ushered this bill through two Congresses, two successful votes on the House floor, and we're now about to go to conference and have the crowning achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield myself 1 minute to respond to a repeated misunderstanding of and misconstruction of the language referring to antitrust immunity.

Airlines are free to engage in alliances and have been ever since the Deregulation Act of 1978. The threat to competition and to airline prices and fairness in the marketplace is to bless that relationship, codesharing, with immunity from the antitrust laws so that the airlines in the alliance can collude on market and pricing and on scheduling. They should not have antitrust immunity.

The alliance is a fair and equitable competition device, but it should not be free from the antitrust laws of the United States.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

If I had my way, I would eliminate the antitrust altogether, but we're providing a process by which the benefits of alliances that have been given antitrust immunity can be evaluated, determined whether there was a balance of benefits to the traveling public; if so, if they prove their case, they show that there are benefits, then the antitrust immunity continues in place.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

How much time remains on both sides?

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, we have only one speaker left on our side, and so since it is our responsibility to close, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin to acknowledge his remaining speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I have made it clear from the outset that the process in which we find ourselves on the House floor is due to the means by which the Senate brought their bill through the Senate and sent it over to us, and one aspect of that is that the aviation bill reported by the Senate includes a tax provision, which the Senate cannot initiate. Under the Constitution, it must be initiated by the House.

So in order to keep faith with the Constitution, the Senate amended an already-passed House tax bill to which they added their aviation bill. The tax provision has now been vacated, and we send back to the Senate an aviation bill on which there will be a conference.

We have insisted on it. Our leadership has concurred and said there will be a conference; they agreed with the Senate leadership, and there will be a conference. And these issues that have

been discussed of the provisions of the House bill have twice passed the House already, will be matters to be discussed with our colleagues in the Senate in the conference in an open conference session, period. It is a complex process to get us there, but it is a process by which we will get to conference with the Senate.

Now, never did I say in my remarks that the inability to pass this bill in 2007 was the fault of President Bush. I did not say that. I said, and I read from the Statement of Administration Policy, that if our 2007 bill, H.R. 2881, were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. That is quite plain on its face a statement recited from the administration's Statement of Administration Policy.

We moved, as Mr. Costello already explained and laid out the time line, very promptly in our committee, preceded by consultations with our Republican colleagues. We had discussions in February, March, and April, into May. We had a markup in committee in May. And then we withheld going to the floor in an attempt to reach an agreement with the FAA, the Bush administration, and the air traffic controllers.

And I must compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member, for his participation, his ready willingness to engage personally, not just send minions, but to engage personally in that process. He participated in numerous meetings with Mr. Costello and me, Secretary Peters, Marion Blakey, administrator of FAA, and a person from the Office of Management and Budget to speak authoritatively for the administration on the budget and expenditure issues. We talked extensively in June and in July. We had several meetings through July and the first week of August.

We came back the first week of September after the August recess, and again, Mr. Mica in the room, we had discussions. I give him great credit for engaging himself personally. We could not reach the--not ``we''--the air traffic controllers and the administration could not reach agreement. At that point we said we do have a responsibility to move this bill, and on September 20 it passed the House 267-151.

There was no comparable bill in the Senate. The Senate was wrestling with the administration's proposals for taxes that Senators objected to, financing agreements that the Senate objected to that they found that they could not reach agreement internally nor could they reach agreement with the administration. Therefore, we had to pass finally an extension of current law, the bill that Mr. Mica authored as Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee in 2003 and which we all supported.

Since then, we have had a Presidential election, the administration moved in, and we moved promptly on our bill. We did all the right things to reach agreement, starting from our point in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the administration addressed the issue of the air traffic controller contract. Secretary LaHood made it his first responsibility: bring the controllers in, bring the FAA, bring the Office of Management and Budget into discussions. Find what the points of agreement were, points of disagreement, and resolve the matter, as it should be done.

With good will and willingness on both sides, some 600 items were resolved, including the very crucial ones of pay and pay grades and pay scales, and a starting point of next negotiation for the follow-on contract. It was a remarkable achievement, and the end result was that 94 percent of controllers voted in favor of it.

I am very mystified by the comment that I heard about the aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. Section 311 requires the FAA to begin a rulemaking to update aircraft rescue and firefighting standards and bring them into compliance with existing national voluntary consensus standards for response time, deployment, staffing, hazardous materials training only if such standards are found to be practical.

That is not a one-size-fits-all. That is not a straitjacket. That is not imposing something arbitrarily. That is a process by which these issues can be resolved. It is a rational response. It was agreed upon in our committee. FAA, airport authorities, International Association of Firefighters participated in developing the standards and support them. The rulemaking will provide a process by which all those who have an interest in air crash fire and rescue will have the opportunity to have a say in and shape the final standards.

We are not doing it by law. We are not saying this is the standard. We are not shoving something down somebody's throat. We are creating a process by which that standard can be established.

I know a good deal about air crash rescue and firefighting because we have a facility in Duluth, not at the airport, but operated by the community college, lake Superior College. It's no longer a community college, it's a full-fledged university-level operation, and they train firefighters. They were training over 2,000 a year from all over the United States, from 14 foreign countries that came to this facility. They know a good deal about standards and about equipment and training of personnel.

They have, in fact, the hull of a DC-10 that is used as training. They put it on fire a couple of times a week. They train people in how to deal with fire and to rescue people from burning aircraft. And so what we've created in this legislation is a process by which standards will be set for the whole country to save lives.

The pure speculation and the scare tactics that the airlines have engaged in--they've sent talking points to people around the country and to various airport authorities and had them send this false information on. That's pure scare tactics. I already used time to explain this with the gentleman from Texas.

This bill needs to pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the House amendment to H.R. 1586. This comprehensive bill includes two bills passed by the House, H.R. 915, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, and H.R. 3371, the Bipartisan Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009. Together, these bills are a product of over 20 hearings of our subcommittee, of the Aviation Subcommittee, many roundtable discussions on a whole host of topics in the aviation industry, and let me say that we also had the input and worked with the Federal Aviation Administration and every group and organization in the aviation community.

Mr. Speaker, the other body passed the FAA Reauthorization bill, H.R. 1586, using an unrelated House-passed tax bill, as Chairman Oberstar stated. The Senate amended H.R. 1586 and inserted the language from S. 1451, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.

In response to the action taken by the Senate, today the House will be amending H.R. 1586 with language that has already been passed by the House to ensure many important provisions included in both bills, H.R. 915 and H.R. 3371, that they're maintained throughout conference with the Senate.

There are provisions that are very important that are not included in the Senate bill that were included in H.R. 915, in the legislation that the House is amending today that I want to highlight.

First, the House bill increases the cap on the passenger facility charge from $4.50 to $7 to help airports that choose to participate in the PFC program to meet capital needs. According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting a $4 or $4.50 PFC raises its PFC to $7, that increase would generate approximately $1.3 billion in additional revenue for airport capital needs each year. This increase in the PFC will allow airports to improve and expand their facilities, while creating jobs at a time when jobs are critically needed in this country.

Second, H.R. 1586, as amended, provides consistency in collective bargaining rights throughout the express carrier industry by allowing employees working on the ground and driving trucks to organize under the National Labor Relations Act, which enables employees to organize at the local level as opposed to the national level. 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.

In addition, this legislation also includes one of the strongest aviation safety bills in decades, H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation was written and introduced by Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Mr. Petri, and myself last year. The legislation was introduced after many hearings and roundtable discussions and with the input of the families of those who perished in the Colgan accident in Buffalo, the pilot groups, airlines, the National Safety Transportation Board, and the Department of Transportation Inspector General, as well as many Members of this body.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the Aviation Subcommittee also held hearings and roundtables on safety issues related to the Colgan accident, culminating in the introduction of H.R. 3371.

Regional airlines have been involved in the last seven fatal U.S. airline accidents, and pilot performance has been implicated in four of these accidents. Our bill, the action that we take today, and the action that we took in the legislation before us will strengthen pilot training requirements and qualifications.

There are five important provisions that I want to highlight very quickly that were originally included in H.R. 3371 and in the bill before us.

First, to address pilot qualification, the bill increases the minimum number of flight hours required to be hired as an airline pilot. Currently, the first officer only needs a commercial pilot's license to be a pilot, which requires a minimum of 250 flight hours. There is a consensus that 250 hours is simply not enough to be an airline pilot and that safety would be improved by raising the standard.

Under our legislation, all airline pilots must obtain an airline transport pilot license, which is currently only mandatory for an airline captain. The ATP requires a minimum of 1,500 flight hours and additional aeronautical knowledge, crew resource management training, and greater flight proficiency testing.

The legislation also strengthens the ATP qualitative minimum requirements, such as demonstrating the ability to function effectively in a multipilot environment and in training to fly in adverse weather conditions, including icing.

Second, we mandate several outstanding NTSB recommendations related to pilot training that were discussed at our hearings, such as those on stall and upset recovery and remedial training.

Third, to ensure that airlines can make informed hiring decisions, the bill requires the FAA to create and maintain an electronic pilot records database. The database will allow an airline to quickly assess an applicant's comprehensive record for hiring purposes only.

Fourth, fatigue has been on the NTSB's most wanted list since 1990. The bill directs the FAA to implement a new pilot flight and duty time rule, taking into account the operating environment of today's pilots and the scientific research on fatigue. As part of the rulemaking, the National Academy of Sciences is tasked with studying the effects of commuting on pilot fatigue. In addition, the bill requires air carriers to create fatigue risk management systems to proactively mitigate fatigue.

Finally, the bill requires all Internet Web sites that sell airline tickets to show, on the first page of the Web display, the name of the air carrier operating each flight segment of a proposed itinerary.

Although there are a few contentious issues that you heard about today, I believe that we have discussed many of these issues and that they can be resolved in conference with the Senate. Virtually the entire aviation community, the airlines, the airports, general aviation, State aviation officials have communicated to us in a unified voice the need to get a multiyear reauthorization done as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the House has already passed these bills separately. Incorporated together as the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010, this legislation provides important stability

for NextGen and the needed capacity improvements, while also strengthening aviation safety.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Oberstar for not only all of his hard work--I think everyone in this body recognizes that no one knows more about aviation and transportation issues, not only in the Congress, but I would venture to say in this country, than the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Oberstar.

Both of these bills, both the reauthorization bill and the pilot safety bill, are very good bills. Both have gone through extensive hearings. As I said, we had over 20 safety hearings on the reauthorization bill. We had many roundtable discussions. We had the input of everyone that you can think of in the industry. We heard from all sides. No one was shut out of the process.

The airlines, the airports, the pilots, the flight attendants, the mechanics, the family members of those who perished in the Colgan tragedy, we heard from all of them. We had Captain Sullenberger in to talk to us about the pilot safety bill to seek his opinion about what needed to be done as far as increasing standards and improving safety.

So both of these bills, both the reauthorization bill and the pilot safety bill, they also--not only did we go through extensive hearings but they passed the committee overwhelmingly and passed this body overwhelmingly. There are no surprises in either one of those bills, in the FAA reauthorization bill or in the pilot training bill. All of the issues, all of the provisions that are in both of these bills have gone through extensive hearings and through extensive discussions. There were no surprises.

My friend from Florida makes reference to the bill that he passed as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in 2003, and I think it's worth noting that we, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and Mr. Oberstar as chairman of the full committee, we started negotiations on the reauthorization bill back in 2007, in the spring of 2007. We met with our friends on the other side of the aisle. We talked about the reauthorization bill, what needed to be in it, and it was the Bush administration.

My friend from Florida knows because he told me over and over again that if we passed the bill that we were putting together, that the Bush administration would veto the bill. In addition to that, it was the Bush administration administrator of the FAA at the time, Ms. Blakey, who was the administrator of the FAA, who, in fact, we had a difficult time negotiating with her concerning some provisions in the bill, in particular, the contract problems with the air traffic controllers.

And then after she left the position and an acting administrator, Mr. Sturgell, was appointed, he, in fact, dragged negotiations out. And finally, when we got to the point where we thought we had an agreement, there was only one pending problem with the agreement, and the FAA demanded some concessions on the part of the air traffic controllers. And the air traffic controllers came into a meeting with all of us and said, if that's what it takes to get a contract and get this dispute settled, we will give it up. We will make these concessions.

And Mr. Sturgell, in that room, said, well, there are other issues. We thought we had an agreement but for one item. And when the air traffic controllers said we will make those concessions, we are all in to get this solved, it was the Bush administration that said, we have more problems and other issues that we have to discuss.

So let me just say that I am not here to point fingers. But when my friend from Florida says that the Democrats control the House and the Senate and the White House, the fact of the matter is what I just said: we were ready to go with the bill in the spring and summer of 2007, and the reason that it was held up is because we continued to try and negotiate and try and get the Bush administration and the FAA under the Bush administration to reach agreements with us and, unfortunately, it did not happen. We came to the floor, and we passed the bill in 2007 with very strong support.

Again, I would just remind Members, there are no surprises in this bill today. Every provision in the FAA reauthorization bill, every provision in the pilot safety and training bill, all of those provisions were aired out with everyone in the industry and, in fact, were discussed by the leadership of the committee and the members of the committee when these bills were marked up in committee. We had extensive discussions. There are no surprises. Nothing has been added to either one of these bills that we have before us today.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying, Mr. Mica says this is a job killer and in fact has read off from a list of how many jobs that each Member could potentially lose in their district. Let me tell you what the FAA says.

The FAA says that this is not a job killer, but it will create jobs. And what they say is, in the short term, the bill will immediately create good construction and technology jobs, giving local economies the jump-start they need. So the economics will improve, the economy will improve. According to the FAA, the bill will allow billions to be spent on upgrading and expanding airports throughout the country. It is expected to create 125,000 jobs annually.

That comes from the FAA. This is not a job killer. This is a job creator. It is investing in our infrastructure at our airports, it will reduce congestion, it will reduce delays. It has a consumer protection provision in these bills to protect passengers.

Let me just conclude by saying that I would hope my friend from Florida and my friends on the other side of the aisle would in fact vote in favor of this legislation. And whatever differences that we may have in the provisions that they may not like, that's why we have a conference, that's why we go to conference, to work out our differences.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

Today we are considering an amendment to H.R. 1586, the Senate-passed FAA reauthorization bill which will substitute two previously considered and passed House bills: H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009.

This is a procedural process deemed necessary in order for the House and Senate to enter into negotiations to reconcile the differences in each Chamber's FAA reauthorization bill.

While I support the process moving forward, I cannot support the House amendment to H.R. 1586 due to the inclusion of several controversial provisions in the House FAA reauthorization bill being inserted by the amendment.

Certainly we all agree that we need a final bipartisan and bicameral FAA reauthorization bill, and we need it sooner rather than later. With the latest of 13 extensions having passed the House just yesterday, the FAA is still working under the 2003 FAA reauthorization. This is a very untenable situation, so the urgency of this legislation remains.

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

The amendment includes a provision from H.R. 915 that increases Federal investment in aviation infrastructure with funding for the Airport Improvement Program increased to a total of $12.3 billion over 3 years. The facilities and equipment program is increased to $10.1 billion.

The amendment, through a H.R. 915 provision, also increases the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety improvements. The cap was last raised 10 years ago, and the $4.50 maximum charge is now worth far less due to the passage of time, as well as 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 transition from the 50-year-old ground-based technology to a modern satellite-based system in order to increase capacity, lower costs and increase safety and efficiency in our system. The legislation before us 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 the $15 billion-$20 billion in government costs for this multi-year program to keep moving forward. Our chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello, has been very active in providing oversight.

The amendment, with the inclusion of H.R. 915 provisions, also improves safety, provides noise mitigation and enhances environmental initiatives. Passenger rights would be addressed by ensuring that airlines and airports plan for the care of passengers who are trapped in long delays on tarmacs.

It also mandates the establishment of a process to avoid airline overscheduling that inevitably leads to delay.

The House amendment also includes H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009, a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that passed the House last year. H.R. 3371 improves access and review of pilots' records, requires more extensive pilot training, improves pilot professionalism, addresses pilot fatigue, and increases the minimum certification standards for commercial airline pilots. I look forward to working on finalizing these provisions with the Senate during a conference committee to improve airline safety.

Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of important safety provisions, the amendment also includes a number of controversial provisions in H.R. 915, the same provisions that delayed consideration of the FAA reauthorization in the Senate. Therefore, it's impossible for me to support the amendment in its current form.

One provision regarding air traffic controllers provides for changes in future impasse procedures, which I don't object to, but it also includes costly rollback and backpay requirements under terms of the 1998 contract. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in budget year 2009 was $83 million, and about $1 billion over the life of the bill. With the arbitrated controller contract agreed to last year, I would have thought this provision would no longer be necessary. However, since it remains as it did in H.R. 915 in the amendment, the provision remains problematic.

H.R. 915 also includes a provision that would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. This is really targeted at one company, FedEx Express. FedEx Express was organized as, and still is, an air carrier, in particular, an express carrier. As such, it's been covered by the Railway Labor Act since its creation in 1971.

It has trucks, but it is a fully integrated system, and the trucks would not operate without the planes, which was reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals several years ago. I'd note that other companies within the FedEx family, such as FedEx Freight, are rightly covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

Other provisions included in the amendment from H.R. 915 raise concerns, such as the foreign repair station language, which may have the unintended consequences of leading to retaliation by the European Union. This will result in the loss of jobs here in the U.S., as European customers may no longer send planes to the U.S. and the Europeans may impose costly certification and inspection processes on U.S. repair stations.

Also, H.R. 915 included a provision that would automatically sunset airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after enactment. We are told this could threaten approximately 15,000 airline jobs in the United States. Considering U.S.-based airlines have already been forced to cut a staggering

41,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of their work force in the last 2 years, further job loss resulting from this provision raises obvious concerns.

I'd like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member John Mica and other members of the committee for their continued dedication in working to pass an FAA bill. Many thanks also to our hardworking staff for the effort they've put in over the last 3 years.

And in conclusion, I support the general goals and the majority of this bill in terms of increasing infrastructure investment, advancing NextGen, improving safety and the environment, and increasing passenger protections. There are a few specific provisions that will preclude me from voting for the House amendment to H.R. 1586. Nevertheless, I'm pleased we're considering this bill today and, after it passes, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in a conference committee with the Senate so that we can get a bipartisan, bicameral FAA reauthorization in place.

Yes.

That was my observation, and I'm happy with that assurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague from the State of Texas, Kevin Brady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one request for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have only one request and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, John Mica, from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that we are talking past each other a little bit. I think the bill overall, I certainly would not dispute the estimate of the Department of Transportation or the FAA that increasing the funding available for construction of new airports and for operating the system and for putting in the NextGen and so on will create jobs within the airline system.

But I think the ranking member, Mr. Mica, was speaking about some other provisions of the bill and the impact it might have under certain interpretations, on, for example, repair stations or on airline jobs in this country. So there would be gains in one area, but there are potential losses in another area. That was the concern.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.