Security Enhancement and Jobs Act of 2011

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the legislation before us now, as the Chair has indicated, is the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011.

During the discussion on the rule which brought the measure to the floor, I had an opportunity to speak on the fairness of the rule, and again I'll cite: Having been here for a number of years and observed the process for three decades, I rarely find any time in which everyone has had a fair opportunity to offer amendments. Some 48 amendments were offered before the Rules Committee. Thirty-three were accepted. Nine were withdrawn. So there are only six that were not considered--some for germaneness reasons, some for being duplicative--and also, in fairness, for Members to have an opportunity to participate. So, again, I think the process that we have come forward with is very, very fair. The process has been fair and bipartisan in the committee.

In the last 4 years, as the ranking Republican, Republican leader of the committee, I can count on probably less than three fingers the number of votes that we had over the 4 years. We had many more votes than that in the committee. It was an open process and people had the opportunity to participate.

I also spoke in the rule of how we got ourselves in this predicament. I had

the honor and privilege of being the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee after the beginning of 9/11 and through the fateful time of 9/11 for 6 years. In 2003, we passed the last authorization for FAA. Now, in order to operate the Federal Government and each of its agencies and activities, the Congress must authorize the programs, the policies, the agencies, the funding formulas, and the projects that are eligible for Federal participation.

As I also stated, the other side of the aisle for 4 years had huge majorities, could pass anything that they wanted to. Very large majority in the House, large majority in the Senate. And the last 2 years, indeed, they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. They could pass anything they wanted.

In 2007, the bill that I helped author, a 4-year authorization, expired. They did 17 extensions in 4 years. It's no wonder people don't have jobs. It's no wonder that people in the aviation industry don't know which way the Federal Government is coming or going. It's no wonder that you have some disarray in one of our most important agencies, the FAA. They had 4 years; we've had less than 4 months. We're bringing the bill out.

We've had a fair process in the committee, and we've had opportunity for people to offer amendments and will spend most of today and maybe part of tomorrow going through those amendments in, I think, an adequate time for debate. The bill does make some reductions in spending and it does take us back to the 2008 level of spending.

Now, the first thing you will hear from the other side is, Oh, the Republicans are cutting and slashing important FAA programs and safety and security and everything under the sun will be at risk. I can tell you that that's not the case. I can tell you that you can do more with less, and we can prioritize. In fact, in this bill, to make certain that safety is our primary concern--and it must be our primary concern--we have put specific provisions in here that if there are cuts or reductions--and heaven knows the FAA and the Department of Transportation certainly can have reductions in bureaucratic staffing. My dad used to say when he was alive, ``Son, it's not how much you spend; it's how you spend it.'' And it's just like that with personnel.

People say, well, we're not going to have enough air traffic controllers. We just had the incident out at Reagan. We had an air traffic controller with some 20 years' experience, 17 years at DCA, came to work I guess at 10 o'clock. There was somebody there until almost 10:30. So I understand he was there an hour and 28 minutes and either fell asleep or wasn't doing his duty. So, in Washington, what do they do? We've got to double up. We've got to have more employees.

Listen to this statistic. Since before 2001, we have a 21 percent decrease. If we go to 2001 to today, we have a 21 percent decrease in air traffic movements. Why? Because the industry has consolidated. We don't have as many flights. The economy is down. At the same time, we have an increase in 20 percent of staffing. If you look at airports around the country, you will see some with huge reductions in air traffic and still the same number of air traffic controllers. In this bill, we give some flexibility so you can hopefully move people around.

Now, I know there are labor agreements and it's hard to get people to move, and some people might not like the warm climes and beauty of Florida where the population has expanded--and Arizona and wherever else we need them--but, for heaven's sake, do we need to double up? Do we need to double up when there's no air traffic at these airports between midnight and 5 a.m.? That's the Washington big spending, big government. Let's add more.

So I can tell you that there's plenty of room for doing things responsibly, doing things with safety in mind. Now let's try a new approach with the best interests of the taxpayer.

They've spent some $5.3 billion in about 24 months more than we take in. We're on the verge of having our financial security of this Nation at risk and also threatening even the defense security of this Nation.

Again, 17 times they did these little hiccup extensions, costing millions of dollars. Just ask the FAA administrator; the recalculation, all the things that had to be done; the inability to move forward with safety programs, for that matter.

So I just want to make the point that we can accomplish what we've set out: a reduction in spending and, actually, better performance and better safety. I could give more examples. I don't have a lot of time.

We used to chase developmental programs, and the government would try to develop technology for air traffic control, and they take forever. And the private sector would develop technologies. They do it sooner, faster, better, with more capability, while we're still spending billions of dollars recklessly. And we reduced, actually, the amount of money in those developmental programs, and we actually have put out there the technology faster, better. So there are many areas, and I can't spend all my time talking about them.

This is a job creation bill. 9.2 percent of the gross domestic activity in this Nation depends on this industry. We count on this. As I said, in less than 4 months, the other body, the Senate, has already passed the bill. We're ready to go to conference. We've asked for one extension to accomplish this. And this bill has excellent provisions.

Finally, you will hear them moan and groan about some labor provision that someone described that we're taking away democratic rights and all of this for union members. It couldn't be further from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for labor where we've always had a majority of those who were affected have to vote in a union. Now they want to change it to whoever shows up. They have multiple elections. And that's what they're asking for.

The little caveat here--and I hope everyone is listening, Madam Chair. What they didn't do is to decertify to get out of the union. They left the old rule in place. There has to be a majority of everyone who's affected.

They'll tell you that they didn't let women vote and all this a long time ago, try to mix up the topic at hand and confuse people, but you can't think of a more unfair rule than a packed National Mediation Board has enacted. Unfair, easy to enter in, cut the provisions for entering in, and then put a barrier up to get out.

Again, I think this is an excellent program. It gives us opportunities to look at contract towers and then air traffic control, NextGen, the next generation of air traffic control. We can do better. We can get technology in place. We'll probably have to use fewer people. And we'll always know where the planes are if we can move this legislation forward that, again, has been on the shelf for some 4 years.

There are excellent provisions in this legislation. I feel confident that it deserves the support of the House, and we'll have fair and open debate on amendments.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and

Reform Act of 2011.

H.R. 658 was favorably reported by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure on March 10, 2011 and

sequentially referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring

this legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and, accordingly, I will waive further

consideration of this bill in Committee. This, of course,

being conditional on our mutual understanding that Title X of

the legislation reported by your Committee will be removed

from the legislation and provisions regarding research and

development activities at the Federal Aviation Administration

developed by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

will be included in the legislation considered on the Floor.

However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should

not be construed as waiving, reducing or affecting the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology.

Further, I request your support in the appointment of

conferees from the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology during any House-Senate conference convened on

this, or any similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of

this letter and your response be placed in the Congressional

Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

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

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman.

Reminding everyone that we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Madam Chair, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and allow him to control it for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chair of the Highways Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Madam Chairman, I understand that the Ways and Means Committee is in markup. I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim their time, I believe that is 5 minutes on our side, that the Transportation and Infrastructure majority be permitted to claim that time.

Madam Chairman, I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), one of the senior members of the T&I Committee and a leader on the Judiciary Committee.

Might I inquire as to how much time remains?

I would like to reserve my time that I acquired on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee to close and, I believe, if it's appropriate, have the Science Committee, which I think is yielded 5 minutes on each side, go forward prior to my close.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, as we close debate on the long overdue FAA reauthorization, first I have to thank my copartner in this, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). He is a gentleman. It is great to work with him. I have to thank also Mr. Petri, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, he and Mr. Costello, two gentlemen who have worked hard to bring the bill to this point. It has been a struggle for 4 years, and now, to get here. But I am pleased that we are at this point. There are differences of opinion about the bill.

I have to take a moment to thank staff on both sides. They are great, and have been working together to get us to this point. And we will debate the amendments and the differences, and then we will hopefully pass this and get people working and get our aviation policies secure for the Nation.

I have to thank Mr. Hall, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, for his provisions to make certain that research in aviation is done. Mr. Camp brought a proposal here from Ways and Means that doesn't raise taxes, that doesn't increase fees. There are no passenger facility increases. So those kinds of things.

We brought a bill. It does have $59 billion over 4 years--this isn't small potatoes--and it can, if properly expended and wisely applied, can do well for the Nation, ensuring safety in programs that are so important and moving jobs that are so critical. 9.3 percent of our economy depends on this legislation.

The colloquy between Mr. Shuster and the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) on Essential Air Service, I understand their concerns and their great advocacy for their constituents and making certain that service is there. We do have a sunset provision. We will work with them and we will do our best. But I agreed to work with them, and I reconfirm that here.

Finally, letters of support. You heard the other side state that nobody supports this. I have a list of 45 major associations, every major organization in the aviation industry, and I will submit that for the record. On the question of AIA support, I have a letter of support from Marion Blakey, showing their support of this legislation.

In conclusion, we are doing here something that needs to be done. This is very important. It has been left aside. Seventeen extensions. When the other side, of course, had huge majorities, they could have done this almost by unanimous consent with the President.

Now, the President threatened to veto this. I am not going to say, ``Make my day,'' but I want to say that this is a fair provision, fair to everyone in labor, fair to everyone who wants to join a labor union, to keep 70 years of law that has been on the books and not change it because you have jerry-rigged the membership of the National Mediation Board. So let's be fair, fair going in and fair coming out. This provision that we have in the bill creates fairness.

Broad Support for H.R. 658--FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA); Air Transport Association

(ATA); Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); International

Association of Fire Chiefs; Air Medical Operators Association

(AMOA); Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS);

Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA); U.S. Chamber

of Commerce; Cargo Airline Association (CAA); National

Business Aviation Association (NBAA); National Air Transport

Association (NATA); National Air Carrier Association (NACA);

Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

(AUVSI); Alliance for Worker Freedom; AdvaMed; Airforwarders

Association; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers;

AT&T; Boston Scientific; Consumer Electronics Association.;

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition; CTIA--The Wireless

Association.

Dangerous Goods Advisory Council; DHL; Express Association

of America; FedEx Corporation; Garmin; Hewlett-Packard;

International Air Transport Association (IATA); Information

Technology Industry Council; Johnson Controls; Motorola

Mobility; Motorola Solutions; National Association of

Manufacturers; National Electrical Manufacturers Association;

National Retail Federation; Power Tool Institute; PRBA--The

Rechargeable Battery Association; Retail Industry Leaders

Association; Samsung SDI; Security Industry Association;

Sony; UPS; The International Air Cargo Association.

Aerospace Industries Association,

Arlington, VA, February 16, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives.

Chairman Mica, and Ranking Member Rahall; I write today to

express the Aerospace Industries Association's (AIA) support

for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization

and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 658), as introduced by the House

Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee

February 11, 2011.

During my February 9 testimony, I outlined a number of

initiatives the FAA may undertake to reduce duplicative

efforts, measure the effectiveness of existing processes, and

capitalize on the experience and efficiency of the private

sector. These efficiencies are paramount to ensuring the

FAA's ability to maintain the highest level of safety,

provide oversight responsibilities without delaying

manufacturers' ability to compete internationally, and

aggressively advance the Next Generation Air Transportation

System (NextGen).

AIA is pleased with the Committee's decision to address key

policies such as environmental streamlining, third party

performance based navigation procedure design, and the

establishment of NextGen performance metrics. Further, the

Committee's acknowledgement of the benefits of bilateral

aviation safety agreements and a risk based inspection regime

when applied to repair station oversight cannot be

overstated. These carefully negotiated agreements increase

FAA's efficiency, enhance FAA's international safety

oversight and help protect U.S. jobs.

FAA is the global gold standard for aviation safety and

standards. U.S. civil aviation manufacturers are the world

leaders in advanced aerospace technology, innovative

satellite-based procedures and airspace design. The policies

outlined in H.R. 658 permit the FAA to not only pursue

efficiencies for the flying public but also protect the

investment of the American taxpayer.

If AIA can provide any technical assistance or answer any

questions, please do not hesitate to call me directly.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The manager's amendment is pretty simple. First of all, we have tried to accommodate as many Members as we could with their requests and include on both sides of the aisle provisions that they requested that weren't in the original submission.

Additionally, the manager's amendment makes technical corrections to provisions in the underlying bill, including those related to unmanned aircraft systems, ADS-B readiness verification, flight attendant fatigue, FAA access to criminal records databases, and also, as Mr. Coble said, who was with us earlier, just a small accommodation for another Member who wanted musical instruments, some provisions again in the bill. So we have tried to accommodate many of the Members who have had these questions.

The manager's amendment also contains provisions regarding public- private partnerships to advance NextGen. If the government does it, it usually doesn't get done. If we have public-private partnerships and closely monitor that, we can have great success, reduce costs, and bring technology online that makes it even safer for people to fly at lower costs and with less personnel.

We have protections for voluntary safety data submissions. We also have a provision that is very important for the European Union Emissions Trading scheme. This is very important, because they are trying to close us down or tax us as we enter some of their airspace.

We have agreements at the airport for new revenue liability protections for volunteer pilot organizations, for public benefit flights, and also for privacy protections for airspace users, and also, finally, the safe shipment of lithium batteries.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in

preparing the Manager's amendment to H.R. 658, the ``FAA

Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011.'' As you know, the

amendment includes provisions related to the Freedom of

Information Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be

considered in a conference with the Senate. Finally, I

request that you include this letter and your response in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

To close on the manager's amendment which I have offered today, first of all, let me just say that the two objections that have been raised again by the minority--and I appreciate their concerns--as to the safety reporting, which we put in some years ago, has actually resulted in probably the safest system that we've had in the world and the safest safety record in history. If you stop and think about it--I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee--the last large commercial aircraft that we had that went down, unfortunately, was near Veterans Day of 2001, after 9/11.

Safety reporting is so important and is done on a voluntary basis, and it's so important that the people who collect this data are not held liable. They're collecting the data that benefits us to make this safe. This has worked. It's kept us safe. And we want to ensure, again, that this continues. Some will say we had commuter. Yes, we did have commuter. We also passed commuter safety legislation to deal with problems we had there. So we have a safe system. We don't want to stop that. We don't want the recording of the data to stop or those held liable that are collecting the data. That's the first point.

The second point: lithium batteries. This is a lithium battery. This has a lithium battery. This is a pacemaker. This keeps your heart going. This has a lithium battery. Laptops have lithium batteries. Almost everything has lithium batteries. Leave it to the DOT to try to put in place rules that would create stopping granny and grandpa and others that need this pacemaker from getting it. If we didn't have this provision in here, it would be a $1.1 billion impact on industry. We'd reroute the shipment of this stuff through other countries to avoid paying and going through the onerous regulations that our government would create.

Countless consumers would be forced to pay more because of silly regulations that don't make any sense. A severe supply chain issue and limitations on supply would be imposed. We would have delays in shipping lifesaving equipment. This little thing here that saves hearts, that's what they want to mess up. One more Federal regulation to delay shipping. Even our troops, who rely on these lithium batteries--their receiving them would be put at risk, the way DOT is doing.

This is a good provision. It needs to be in the bill. We've got to keep some of the regulation, those that put us out of business, put jobs overseas and put people at risk, out of our way.

I urge the House to pass the manager's amendment with these sound provisions that will make a big difference.

Alliance for Worker Freedom,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Alliance for Worker

Freedom (AWF), an organization established in 2003 to combat

anti-worker legislation and promote free and open labor

markets, I urge you to support the Title IX provision in the

FAA Reauthorization bill which repeals last year's the

unprecedented National Mediation Board (NMB) voting rule

change.

I write this letter in anticipation of an amendment which

looks to strip this essential provision from FAA

Reauthorization.

Last year, the National Mediation Board reversed 75 years

worth of precedent and numerous Supreme Court rulings,

implementing elections rules whereby a majority of voters in

a union election are now able to determine whether a

collective bargaining unit has been formed. Prior to this

ruling, a majority of a workforce was required to certify a

union--a long held and well understood practice. The so-

called ``minority rule'' ruling reveals a contempt for

workers' preferences, as well as a clear bias towards union

interests.

The three member NMB is comprised of two former union

officials, both President Obama appointees, giving them a

stranglehold over the agency's rulemaking process. It is

essential that this obscure agency, beholden to union

interests, have its power checked via Congressional action.

Title IX of the FAA Reauthorization legislation addresses

the inappropriateness of this administratively imposed rule

which aims to facilitate unionization at the expense of

workers' preference. Union complaints that it has become too

difficult to unionize workers, thus necessitating the NMB's

change, are largely unfounded: majority rule has been used in

more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65%

of the time.

Title IX looks to reinstate longstanding union election

rules which require a majority of the workplace's consent to

certify a union.

It is for these reasons that I hope you will help ensure

that Title IX remains in the final version of the FAA

Reauthorization legislation and oppose any amendments that

look to remove this provision.

Sincerely,

Christopher Prandoni,

Executive Director.

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

Although I claim time in opposition, I am going to speak in support of this amendment.

I have the greatest respect for the delegate Congressman from Puerto Rico, also the highest esteem for Governor Fortuno, former delegate representative to this body, two great young leaders, and he's here today trying to ensure that Puerto Rico is treated like any other airport in the United States in terms of airport improvement programs. And I think his amendment clarifies that Puerto Rico also remains eligible for grants from the AIP discretionary fund.

I also know Mr. Pierluisi is willing to work with me on his other amendment, which deals with essential air service. I had offered to work with other Members, and I will state for the record that I will work with him, and I am hoping that if he offers it, he'll withdraw it because I'm going to support this amendment. I think he has a good amendment here, and I would like to work with him on his other provision, but I would hope that he would work with us in that regard.

So this amendment simply provides clear direction to the FAA that Puerto Rico Airport should be treated equitably, and I will support this amendment at this time and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time. Maybe the gentleman has a little response to my support for his amendment.

I do not. But I was hoping to hear that the gentleman from Puerto Rico would be willing to work with me on his other amendment. And I'm sure he will. But I still will support his amendment because I'm that kind of a guy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I actually will support the amendment, but I wanted to give the gentlelady an additional minute to conclude if she had any remarks. As I said, we're very willing to work with her on her next amendment, and hope she would consider working with us. We will support this amendment.

I would like to yield, if I may, Mr. Chairman, as much time as she needs to finish her statement.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to allow them to submit their remarks. We are taking the amendment, and I know she is going to work with us.

I would also be pleased to yield to our colleague from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these letters in support of the bill for the record, and unless the gentlelady needs more time, I am prepared to support this amendment that is pending.

Air Transport Association,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: On behalf of the Air Transport

Association, I am writing to thank you for your leadership

and applaud your success as Chairman, House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee, in successfully obtaining the

full Committee's approval of the Federal Aviation

Administration Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R.

658). After 17 short-term extensions over many years, the

vote can only be attributed to your extraordinary leadership,

tenacious effort and decisive chairmanship.

America's airline industry knows how important this bill is

to the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation.

Certainly, H.R. 658 will move NextGen and other important

programs forward at this crucial time, when the airline

industry is still rebounding from this nation's devastating

economic recession.

Finally, the Air Transport Association and our airline

members stand ready to assist you and your very capable staff

as you prepare to conference with the Senate. Please do not

hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional support.

Sincerely,

Nicholas E. Calio.

I just rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

He has worked with the committee in drafting this amendment, done an excellent job, and we also have the support of FAA on this amendment.

I ask everyone to join in passage of this well-crafted amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and I understand his predicament. He has been one of the strongest advocates for his district on some of the potential problems that might arise from airspace redesign. I had the opportunity to travel to the gentleman's district to meet with his constituents. We have raised great concerns about the New York airspace redesign.

Now, this does put in place another study of the airspace redesign, and, unfortunately, it delays the implementation of airspace redesign in the Northeast corridor, in that New York airspace, until that's complete. So that is why I have to oppose this.

I will work with the gentleman in trying to make certain that FAA treats them fairly and that there are hearings. We have had 120 hearings. I have been in every jurisdiction from Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, all the way up into Connecticut, which is part of the New York airspace, in hearings and public meetings. There have been over 120 FAA meetings. This has been drug through the courts. There were suits, and they were all consolidated. The issues, again, were resolved, and FAA should go forward with airspace redesign and continue to address the concerns of the gentleman.

Why is this important to everyone here? Because more than 70 percent of the chronically delayed flights around the United States start in the New York airspace. That means when New York goes down, the whole country starts going down.

Now, you have got to understand that this battle has been going on for nearly two decades, in and out of court, and fights and everything for the redesign. So what we're left with is a corridor for airspace that is sort of like having U.S. 1 going into New York City 20 or 30 years ago and not expanding or revising the capacity. So that's why we have this situation. That's why I strongly urge not the adoption of this.

I am willing to work with the gentlemen to try to, again, make certain that their concerns are taken into consideration. We do have quieter aircraft. I don't want him, his constituents, or any of the others in the New York airspace to suffer. But this has to come to a conclusion.

Again, it affects everyone in the House of Representatives because more than 70 percent of our chronically delayed flights start in this area, and we have not been able to resolve this question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I have to say that I have the greatest respect for the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Andrews, and the gentleman from New York. They all do have interests here, and they are trying to protect them. They are concerned about noise with the New York airspace redesign. But, again, this has been going on for two decades.

We have a very narrow corridor. We do need to redesign it. We have safety questions now. We have chronic delays, and 70 percent of them emanate from New York. They start in the New York airspace, and then they ripple across the country. So 70 percent of the Members are impacted by this particular provision.

I appreciate their concern in asking for an additional study, but what they do in the provisions they have offered is delay implementation. We have just finished numerous court cases, which were consolidated, which ruled against those in question. I know it's difficult, but we've got to get this done.

Again, I so much appreciate their looking out for their constituents, stating their concern and expressing in every way possible. I will continue to work with them and make certain that there is fairness to the implementation and whatever they adopt does not disturb or unduly cause distress for their constituents. That's all I can do. But I do have to oppose this amendment in the interest of the committee, the country, and the other Members.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the intent of the gentleman who is the distinguished ranking member, former chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, but I think that the

crafting of this amendment is somewhat flawed in that he does now require FAA to take their limited resources. FAA is not a security agency. It's an aviation agency. And again, we have a jurisdictional question here. We can't put in provisions that require TSA to do certain things, but that is their responsibility.

I understand this is also already done where the repair station is at the airport. TSA is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security. But it, appropriately, is in their realm, not FAA. And we do get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies that really this is not their responsibility, their charter under Congress.

Again, I think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. So with that, I have to oppose the amendment as crafted. I'd be willing to work with him. There is a possibility of working with him, I think, and getting it right.

I think his intention is good, but the assignment is misplaced, and it would cause more problems the way it's crafted than benefit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I believe the gentleman's intention is good. The problem I have is with the crafting of the amendment. Now, heaven knows that there's probably been no one that's more critical of TSA. I helped create it along, actually, with Mr. DeFazio back in 2001. They have a lot of important responsibilities. One of them is clearly defined as aviation security, and it should be in repair stations.

Quite frankly, I am concerned about beefing up some of that, getting some of the 3,700 bureaucrats that work and earn on average $105,000, just within miles of here, relocated to where they can do their security function at a place that does pose risk, and that's some of these foreign locations. But this doesn't do the job. It complicates the assignment we have for FAA. And TSA is in a rulemaking process to address this responsibility, which is appropriately located within the purview of, and again, the jurisdiction of TSA. So I, again, oppose the opposition, will work with the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition.

Again, I think the gentlelady's intentions are honorable, and I know she is trying to make certain that we are safe and secure. However, the way the amendment is crafted with actually requiring three air traffic controllers all the time in the top 20 as far as traffic, first of all, I would say it doesn't achieve her goals.

First of all, all of those, we have a list of them, have at least two air traffic controllers. Some of them have very few flights. This doesn't answer the problem that they had at Ronald Reagan Airport. There was a period of time when they have no traffic at many of these airports, so what she would be doing the way this is crafted is requiring at least three all the time, when we have two already, and requiring an additional one.

These are not cheap, easy-to-come-by air traffic controllers. They earn, on average, $163,000. Where I need to put them is where I have the air traffic. We always are required by labor organizations and by FAA to staff to traffic.

So her amendment, while maybe well-intended, it actually achieves the opposite. All of these, every one that she mentioned, has at least two, and then I would be adding more people when they have no traffic as opposed to putting them where I need them where they have traffic.

I understand she is going to withdraw the amendment. I would be glad to work with her. We do have provisions in here that will help us, I think, with some of the personnel movement and questions of professionalism and competency and training that will address some of the shortfalls we have seen from a limited number of FAA air traffic controllers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to control the time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in representing so well the people of Puerto Rico. Also, again, Governor Fortuno, who preceded the current delegate. I talked to them about this situation, and they do indeed have an essential air problem. He cited Vieques and Culebra, for example, and I know even during the recent season they had ferry boat interruption service. There's no other way to get back and forth. And this does constitute Essential Air Service.

As I have said to the gentlewoman and the gentleman from North and South Dakota and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and now to the gentleman with Puerto Rico, I commit to work with them and will try to address their concerns. He has my commitment in that regard.

I understand he's going to withdraw his amendment, and I'm grateful for his cooperation and pledge to work with him.

I yield back the balance my time.

Again, I do have concerns and share the concerns of Mr. Costello. This is a hard-fought provision.

I will guarantee the gentleman that I am aware of his concerns. I will work with him as the bill proceeds hopefully through the conference process. And I think you're doing an outstanding job in representing the constituencies who are affected who want those longer- distance services to come into our Nation's Capital.

Again, he has my strong commitment. I am hoping that he would withdraw the amendment at this time. I pledge to work with him, and I know Mr. Costello will also work with the gentleman in that regard.

Madam President, in recent months President Obama has frequently discussed our Nation's disturbing fiscal situation.

He is right to do so.

Our yearly deficits and accumulated debt hang over the futures of our children and grandchildren like a sword of Damocles.

Though he was late to the table on this issue, President Obama seems to have finally recognized the frustration and anger of the American people over our Federal fiscal policy.

Recognizing that you have a problem is an important first step, and I applaud the administration for speaking about our Nation's structural deficits.

But this is a critical issue, and any solution will require that those responsible give a full and fair accounting of the policies that led to this crisis.

Unfortunately, rather than own up to his administration's complicity in our fiscal imbalance, the President prefers to blame our current and future fiscal problems on the previous administration.

For this President, the buck always seems to stop over there.

This trope is getting old.

Well before citizens began organizing against this administration and its historic spending spree, the President and

his Democratic allies in Congress were justifying their stimulus program by blaming the previous administration. Yet trying to pass off the consequences of the last 2 years on a long-retired President and a Congress that ended over 4 years ago is no longer plausible.

Try as they might, revisionist fiscal history will not absolve our friends on the other side for the fiscal decisions made on their watch.

I will explain that point separately, and in detail, in a few days.

It is well past time that this administration stop pointing fingers. The American people are demanding that their elected Representatives, in Congress and the White House, act like adults and fix this fiscal mess.

In a few weeks, President Obama will send Congress his third budget.

The fact that Treasury Secretary Geithner has already written us requesting legislation to raise the debt ceiling does not bode well for citizens seeking greater spending restraint from this administration. The people of Utah and of this Nation deserve a fair accounting of the spending decisions that have led to this request.

Let me be clear.

The President's desire for a larger level of public debt is a consequence of the fiscal policy choices that he and a Democratic Congress have made over the last 2 years.

Between 2007 and 2010, Democrats enjoyed unprecedented control over Federal policy. When the President was inaugurated 2 years ago, he set to work with historic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Never letting a crisis go to waste, he sought a fundamental restructuring of the American economy, one in which government would play a starring role.

Thanks to our Founders' design, the American people were able to go to the ballot box and give their opinion about these spending policies.

Unfortunately, the administration and its allies did not curb their spending in response to democratic uprisings.

The people spoke--first in Virginia and New Jersey, then in Massachusetts, and finally, last summer, nationwide.

But the Democrats, rather than adjust their policies accordingly, just kept on spending.

The tab for this binge is almost beyond description. In the 2 years that Democrats controlled Washington, our debt has risen by almost $3 trillion.

I have a chart documenting these staggering hikes in the debt limit.

During the short period of all-Democratic rule, the law was changed to raise the debt ceiling on three separate occasions.

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $789 billion, the cost of the stimulus bill at that time.

On December 28, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $290 billion.

And on February 12, 2010, President Obama signed a third debt limit increase bill of $1.9 trillion.

These dollar figures, in terms of the percentage of the economy they represent, are breathtaking. I, like most other Members on both sides of the aisle, eagerly await the President's State of the Union Address. The President is a gifted speaker. And in his usual, eloquent manner, I am sure he will skillfully lay out his fiscal and economic policy goals.

As the incoming ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, let me be the first to say that Republicans are happy to hear the President contemplating serious deficit reduction proposals. We would be overjoyed if he actually took a stand for a meaningful attack on structural deficits and the debt.

But we will judge his proposals harshly if they provide mere window dressing, rather than bold efforts to address a spending trajectory that is approaching crisis status.

Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks.

By the way, here is a chart depicting a photo of Mr. Sutton from Life.com.

How would Willie respond?

He allegedly said he robbed banks because that is where the money is.

If President Obama wants to propose credible deficit reduction proposals, he needs to go where the deficit dollars are.

And what is the source of those deficits?

Taking Willie Sutton's answer to heart, where do we look for those deficits?

They are in the trillions of dollars in new spending that the American taxpayer has been burdened with by this administration.

Non-defense discretionary spending, by itself, has grown by 24 percent over the last couple of years.

And that 24 percent figure does not include the stimulus bill spending.

If stimulus spending is included, nondefense discretionary spending has grown by 84 percent.

That is right, Madam President, 84 percent.

How many typical taxpaying American families have grown their budgets by that much in the last couple of years?

Let's take a look at the Gallup weekly survey of daily consumer spending as a comparison. I have a chart which shows the trend line in daily consumer spending.

Over here, we can see from the chart consumer spending before the financial crisis of fall 2008 and the recession.

It is running near or above $100 per day.

Then what happens?

Americans cut back their extra spending.

It is right here on the rest of the chart.

Is it any wonder Americans are telling us to cut our spending?

They have cut spending. Why can't we in Washington do the same?

When the President laid out his last two budgets, the loudest bipartisan applause came when he stressed fiscal discipline.

That reaction should surprise no one. Though conservatives led the way, the American people understand that deficit reduction is not a partisan issue. If the promises of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution--promises of liberty and opportunity--are to mean anything for future generations, our country needs to take up deficit reduction now.

Republicans are going to insist on meaningful deficit reduction as a course correction to our currently unsustainable fiscal path. As our Nation comes out of this painful slow-growth period--hopefully sooner rather than later--we must focus on cutting the deficit and the debt.

As Republicans, we agree with the President on the priority of fiscal discipline.

But deeds mean more than words.

And twice, the President's budget, in spite of rhetorical nods to fiscal discipline, has gone in the direction of unpaid-for spending, new government programs and entitlements, and massive financial burdens on the next generation of American taxpayers.

The numbers don't lie.

The President and the Democratic leadership have dramatically expanded the deficit and piled onto the debt.

Two years ago, Republicans and Democrats dramatically disagreed on the stimulus bill. Out of all the Republicans in the House and Senate, only three supported the stimulus bill conference report.

Along with most of my Republican colleagues, I rejected this stimulus bill for several reasons.

First was the size and the form of the stimulus. Most on our side understood that $1 trillion in deficit spending was an unacceptable burden on the people who would ultimately foot the bill.

Second, we questioned the focus of the stimulus. We weren't keen on trying to grow the economy by priming the government pump. Spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money on the academic theory that you have to spend money to make money was a gamble the American taxpayer could not afford. And last year, while the administration and its allies were out promoting recovery summer, citizens in Utah and around the country had long before figured out that the administration's stimulus bet was a big loser.

Finally, what disturbed us most was the hidden fiscal burden built into the bill. Although sold as a $787 billion bill, the real cost of the stimulus was, in fact, much higher.

I am going to use a chart to show this hidden cost of the stimulus bill. This chart was produced last year but will be updated when we receive the Congressional Budget Office baseline.

According to the nonpartisan CBO, if popular new programs in the stimulus

bill are made permanent, the cost will be $3.3 trillion.

To use Washington speak, the greatest threat of the new stimulus bill was that it raised the baseline.

This is a nifty trick if you can pull it off.

Its purpose is to open any future spending cuts, no matter how modest, to withering attack.

Here is how it works.

First, Democrats raise spending for some program--to borrow from George Costanza, we will call it The Human Fund.

After Democrats take control of Congress and the White House, spending for The Human Fund goes up by 25 percent, from $1,000,000 to $1,250,000.

Then, when the people reject this spending and send Republicans to roll it back, efforts to cut that spending by a meager 5 percent, from $1,250,000 to $1,187,500, leads all of the interest groups dependent on this federal money to scream that the sky is falling.

An attack on The Human Fund is an attack on all that is decent in this country!

Never mind that this program is still substantially better off than before the Democrats' massive increase in spending.

All that we will hear is that Republicans are ruthlessly seeking to cut 5 percent from this program's budget.

And so it goes.

Our deficit and debt continue to grow as irresponsible and unaffordable increases in spending are baked into our budgetary cake.

This strategy of raising the baseline is on full display in the stimulus bill and the threat that its programs--sold to the public as temporary--will become permanent.

This chart details CBO's analysis of the stimulus.

Let us move from left to right on the chart.

The first column is the basic cost of the bill. If the making work pay refundable tax credit is extended, there is $571 billion in future deficits.

It is in the second column.

If the new entitlement spending in the stimulus is made permanent, then the cost of the bill more than doubles.

It means almost $1 trillion in new hidden entitlement spending right here.

In the fourth column, we have the appropriations spending.

If those increases become permanent, then there is $276 billion in new nondefense discretionary appropriations in this bill.

Finally, we have the rent on all this borrowed money. That is the interest expense. CBO tells us that the interest cost alone on the overt new spending and the hidden new spending from the stimulus totals $744 billion.

Total it all up, and we get $3.3 trillion, not $787 billion.

The total cost of the stimulus is $3.3 trillion.

Our Nation can simply no longer afford this.

These are CBO figures. They are not from a conservative think tank.

There are a couple of simple ways for the stimulus bill supporters to correct this trajectory.

If they want to keep the long-term cost of the stimulus down, they could agree to make all of the stimulus provisions temporary.

Or they could agree to offset extensions of stimulus spending with other spending cuts.

But our friends on the other side have done just the opposite. They have insisted on extending the policy in the stimulus bill without offsets in other areas of spending.

You will recall then National Economic Council Director Larry Summers' three Ts tests for stimulus.

To be effective, the stimulus needed to be timely, targeted, and temporary.

It is failure on that third T, the temporary test, which has been very troubling. Two years into this failed economic experiment, and Democrats still refuse to agree that temporary stimulus proposals should remain temporary.

The path forward is not going to be easy.

While we do have a recent example of deficit reduction, it was not generated by this administration or its congressional allies. If you want to look at enacted legislation over the last decade, there is one significant spending reduction bill. It was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It contained a modest amount of deficit reduction.

The deficit reduction attained was $35 billion. And how did we achieve those savings? That bill was accomplished through reconciliation. The other side opposed it in lock step.

In the end, only Republican votes carried that stand-alone deficit reduction measure.

Yet now American taxpayers are being asked to believe that Democrats have found religion on deficits and debt.

Our friends on the other side will, no doubt, say time out. We have produced a significant deficit reduction bill, they will say.

They will point to last year's ObamaCare legislation. They will argue that this bill, which creates massive new entitlements, somehow saves money. Our Democratic friends will even cite a CBO score showing $230 billion in deficit reduction from this bill.

This assertion does not pass the laugh test.

Anyone who looks beyond the basic score will see that ObamaCare is another huge deficit generator that will burden the American taxpayer for generations to come.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released an analysis, derived from CBO data, that tells the full story of ObamaCare's deficit impact. Here is what Chairman Ryan said:

Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion needed

to implement the law. The score double-counts $521 billion

from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and

Medicare cuts. It strips a costly doc-fix provision that was

included in initial score. It measures 10 years of revenues

to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that

the creation of a new trillion-dollar, open-ended entitlement

is a fiscal train wreck.

Add it all up and the fiscal reality is that ObamaCare busts the budget by $701 billion.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Chairman Ryan's analysis be printed in the Record.

This double counting of the Medicare cuts is a dangerous accounting gambit. Former Senator Gregg and I warned the Medicare trustees about it in a letter last year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

A clear pattern has emerged with respect to Democratic rhetoric on the budget. They speak loudly about deficit reduction, while continuing to write checks that this Nation cannot cash.

Consider the last debt limit increase bill, which included the much ballyhooed statutory pay-go scheme. My friends on the other side speak of it frequently.

But they have also been the most frequent violators of both the spirit and letter of statutory pay-go.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee analyzed all of the spending offsets and other budget restraints rejected since statutory pay-go was adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this analysis be printed in the Record.

Total it up and you will find that the cost of Democrats end-running their own pay-go rule meant almost $280 billion in additional deficit spending.

I think this point needs to be very clear.

Senate Republican attempts to force our friends on the other side to abide by the letter or spirit of their own pay-go rule were rebuffed for almost all of last year. This was not some academic exercise. And now the American taxpayers are on the hook for roughly $280 billion, courtesy of Democrats purportedly committed to spending restraint.

Still, we are heartened that Democrats are at least claiming a commitment to deficit reduction.

Talking tough is a necessary--though not sufficient--step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

Similarly, it is a positive development that the President has endorsed passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Maybe the administration is waking up to the importance of our pending trade agreements for our exports and the workers who make them.

But the proof of his commitment to our exporters must go beyond the Korea FTA. We can no longer let our trade agreements with Panama and Colombia languish as we lose competitiveness and allow other countries to seize these markets for their workers.

Talking about trade does not produce jobs. We need the President to take action and submit these agreements to Congress. And we need that action now. The U.S. worker cannot afford to wait.

Passage of these trade agreements can boost our economy and our competitiveness without additional spending. They are important tools that we must put to work. If the President chooses this route, I believe he will find an important ally in Congress.

I look forward to President Obama's proposals for prioritizing deficit reduction. There is no issue more critical to this Nation's future.

And I expect we will hear quite a bit about it in the State of the Union Address.

The President can count on applause from our side of the aisle if he presses for reductions in out-of-control spending. But merely relabeling new spending as investments will not make our deficits go away, and it will do nothing to tackle our escalating debt.

The President must give serious attention to the legitimate arguments and concerns of conservative citizens if he wants to achieve anything more than a pleasant sounding rhetorical flourish.

President Obama did inherit a serious budget deficit. And our friends on the other side will, once again, applaud that line. They will cheer the assertion that they merely inherited deficits. They will spin the convenient tale that Republicans alone bequeathed the deficit to President Obama. But that is certainly not the case. And the record is clear. A Democratic Congress and a

Republican President created this deficit from bipartisan policies they jointly developed.

To those Democrats who claim Republicans have no right to discuss deficits, they need look no further than their own actions. Take a look at the fiscal effects of the stimulus bill they crafted 2 years ago. Take a comprehensive look at the real deficit impact of ObamaCare.

Take an honest look at the appropriations bills that piled on double- digit increases in spending.

American families don't have the luxury of 84 percent or 24 percent increases in their spending. They have made their priorities and restrained their spending.

If American families can prioritize, deleverage, and live within their means, I hope the President will push his allies in Washington to do the same.

All of us in Congress await the arrival of President Obama's third budget.

The American people are demanding that he make deficit reduction a priority. And they are asking Congress to approach this subject in an intellectually honest fashion.

We need to acknowledge that when it comes to the budget, the road to fiscal ruin has been paved with good intentions. In the name of fixing the economy, the Democrats' stimulus bill has imposed both short-term and long-term costs on American taxpayers, jeopardizing economic growth and, with it, liberty and opportunity. That damage has been expanded with un-offset extensions of what we were told were temporary provisions.

As we start writing a budget, let's do it with all the fiscal cards on the table. Let's remove the political blinders and deal with the fiscal facts. And that means being realistic about expiring tax relief, its merits, its economic growth effect, and its political popularity.

This is not a problem that we can tax our way out of. Getting our fiscal house in order is going to require hard decisions on spending. We need to put our shoulders to the wheel. We owe it to the people who sent us here.

There is an old saying that applies here. I am not the first person, nor will I be the last, to reference it in the context of our fiscal troubles. The saying is: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We need to use our shovels to fill this fiscal hole, not dig it deeper.

I look forward to this debate on spending. It will not be an easy one. But the American people have demanded that Congress take up this cause, and I fully intend to.

Ultimately, I am confident that we will achieve meaningful deficit reduction. Yet I go into this debate with my eyes open.

President Reagan, in the foreign policy arena, reminded us to trust, but verify.

As we await the President's State of the Union speech, Republicans trust that Democrats will make a nod toward deficit reduction, but we need to verify whether they are serious about getting this problem under control.

Democrats do not have a great track record when it comes to cutting spending. But hope springs eternal.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam Chair, it was just last week two airliners landed at Washington National Airport without landing clearances because apparently the single person in charge of the control tower fell asleep. While investigations are ongoing, we certainly have seen accidents in the past where controller staffing and fatigue were implicated, such as the August 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.

So I was surprised when some of my Republican colleagues used this most recent incident at Washington National Airport as an opportunity to argue that the FAA should ``do more with less.'' Do more with less: that's how the Republicans think the FAA will operate under this bill. When we're talking about investing in air traffic control modernization or regulating safety or hiring a sufficient number of safety inspectors, there's no such thing as ``doing more with less.''

Under this bill, the FAA will have to do less with less, and you would have to be asleep at the controls not to see that.

The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety related. As last week's incident should make clear, now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from the FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less on safety. A long-term FAA reauthorization bill must move the aviation system into the 21st century, create jobs, strengthen our economy, and provide the resources necessary to enhance safety. This legislation, unfortunately, does not meet those goals. It will require significant changes before it can be enacted into law, and therefore I cannot support it.

One thing we should all be honest about right now: this is not a jobs bill. The bill cuts FAA funding by billions of dollars, back to 2008 levels. You cannot cut funding so dramatically without destroying tens of thousands of jobs: Federal jobs, State jobs, local jobs, public and private sector jobs.

In addition to costing jobs, the bill's funding cuts would cause delays to air traffic control modernization, meaning more delayed flights, a reduction of FAA's safety workforce and delays to FAA safety rules.

Now, aside from the funding levels, there are two particular issues that preclude my support for this bill. The first is that the bill sunsets the Essential Air Service program for the lower 48 States in 2013, leaving behind about 110 communities across the country. Yet at the same time, the bill extends airport improvements to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. We do not even own them. They are independent countries.

Now, I do understand the reasons for providing airport improvement funds to these island nations. We do have a compact with them. But in seeking to keep faith with our agreements with those countries, the majority is more than willing to break the promise to rural America right here at home that was made under the Airline Deregulation Act and the FAA reauthorization bills that followed.

EAS is a vital lifeline between rural communities and the global network of commerce. Small and rural communities have grown up around EAS, which directly supports local jobs. It creates a flow of goods and commerce into and out of small-town America. It brings families together. It links four communities in my home State of West Virginia with other cities and towns around the country and around the world.

Essential Air Service is an investment; it's not a handout. It is an investment in jobs and economic growth for small towns. The majority is turning its back on small towns and rural America.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that Congress has made to the people in rural America. I recognize the job-protecting benefits of the EAS program and the value of critical Federal investment for rural communities.

Now, before I conclude, there's another section that has no business whatsoever being in this bill, and that is a provision that seeks to overturn a rule finalized by the National Mediation Board on fair union representation in elections. The rule did away

with an unjust and undemocratic requirement under which a supermajority of airline and railroad workers had to vote in favor of union representation before a union could be certified to represent them at the bargaining table. Non-votes were counted as ``no'' votes, even though there was no reason to conclude workers were against union representation because they were sick or on furlough and did not vote.

The new rule, which this bill would overturn, says that the mediation board must count the votes among those employees who voted and must determine the will of the workers according to the ``yes'' and ``no'' votes actually cast. Now, just as congressional elections turn on a majority of those who voted, union representation elections should reflect the will of the voters.

This is a poison pill provision. A provision to overturn that rule simply has no business being in this legislation. It has nothing to do with safety. It has nothing to do with improving our air transportation system. And it has absolutely nothing to do with making air service more efficient. Rather, it is a lightning rod of controversy, part of a concerted assault, as we've seen too often this year, on collective bargaining. Republicans and Democrats alike have opposed it. It barely survived in the committee markup by a single vote. This unprovoked and unnecessary provision has no place in such critically needed legislation to keep the FAA moving forward and the flying public safe.

When it comes to doing more with less, my friends on the other side of the aisle are correct about a few things, I have to admit, when it comes to the pending legislation:

More than 70,000 jobs lost with less funding for the AIP program. More risks to the traveling public with less safety personnel and initiatives. More assaults on collective bargaining rights for American workers. More controversial poison pill provisions with less focus on job creation and safety enhancements.

Yep, that's doing more with less.

With warning lights flashing and alarm bells ringing, we cannot afford to go to sleep at the controls at such an important time for our aviation system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), our leading Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee who has been in the trenches, on the runways, and in the towers of this legislation for many years. He has been with the takeoffs and the landings of so many extensions.

Madam Chair, I would defer to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the lead Democrat on our Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

I yield an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the sincere efforts of the chairman of my committee Mr. Mica, the subcommittee chairman Mr. Petri, and our ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

There have been serious efforts to work in a bipartisan way, but I fully realize that on the majority's side a lot of these decisions, a lot of these funding levels are not necessarily made by

the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, but rather by other forces that are out there on the majority's side. I also recognize that a lot of these decisions are made at levels higher than the chairman's, at levels higher than even that at which airplanes fly. So this is not all necessarily the chairman's fault.

I think it would be fair to warn the body that the administration has issued their position on this legislation. And they say that if the funding were appropriated at the levels proposed in the bill, the safe and efficient movement of air traffic, on the ground and in the air, would be degraded today and in the future.

And, more importantly, the administration has reiterated its opposition to the poison pill labor provisions in this bill, and has said if the President is presented with a bill that would not safeguard the ability of railroad and airline workers to decide whether or not they would be represented by a union based upon a majority of the ballots cast in election, or that would degrade safe and efficient air travel, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the House do not accept this bill. We have even further degrading amendments to safety that will come later in the amendment process that I want to reference very quickly at this point, including one that would allow more flyovers at sports events.

I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This would go against a ban instituted after 9/11 that prohibited flyovers at sports events for safety reasons. So that comes later on in the amendment process. I think it just shows the threats that we are posing to the safety of the air traveling public if this bill were to pass as it is. I urge its opposition.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I oppose this amendment because, for me, it raises two key concerns.

First is that the amendment would basically create a liability shield for airlines and airports that are negligent and cause airplane crashes.

Last year, Congress directed the FAA to require airlines to implement safety management systems. Using these systems, airlines will use data to identify risk and improve safety. The FAA is likely to require airports to adopt similar systems.

Under this amendment, adoption of a safety management system would give airlines and airports a total ``pass'' on liability for their ordinary negligence. It would deprive passengers and their families of the right to seek compensation for damage caused by airline crashes. The right to go to court and seek compensation for damage caused by the negligence of another person, including an airline or airport, is an intrinsic part of our law. This amendment would take that right away, and I cannot support it.

My last concern is about a provision in the amendment dealing with lithium batteries. The transport of lithium batteries without appropriate safety checks has been proven to present hazards that could bring down an airplane. This amendment would lock the United States into following international standards on transporting lithium batteries that set the floor, not the bar that we should aspire to. It would prevent airlines from conducting acceptance checks of battery shipments and it would derail essential rulemakings by the Department of Transportation to ensure that lithium batteries are transported safely.

For these two reasons, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Let me applaud the work of this committee, and particularly Mr. Rahall and Mr. Costello, whom we work very closely with. I serve as a ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee, and I can't imagine a more perfect fit than the question of safety and security for our traveling public, and I thank the chairman of the full committee and others associated with this legislation, however disappointed I am in having to come to the floor and raise questions about our next steps. And I am particularly devastated about the cuts in the FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic System, the NextGen.

Whenever you think of air traffic controllers, I want you to think of them as first responders, of which I will discuss in an amendment that I have regarding the issue of ensuring the kind of staffing needs necessary to engage in security. But further, since I have one of the largest airports in the country, Bush Intercontinental Airport, of which we were proud to name, I am disappointed that the FAA Improvement Program has been cut and, therefore, construction improving runways, taxiways, terminals. There's one thing about getting up and getting in the air and having that beautiful feeling. But what about coming down and not being able to work?

And let me say I am disappointed that we would have a Shuster amendment that would really put a dent in the pilot fatigue rulemaking. That is very important. And then of course the issue dealing with the Costello-LaTourette amendment, which I support. How can you win by 70,000, then you count the people who didn't vote, and you lose by 150,000? Let's be fair. Let's have a bill that responds to the needs of all.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of debate, I intend to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

First of all, let me indicate to my colleagues the importance of this issue. I served as the chairperson of the Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security and I now serve as the ranking member, so I have lived through these issues of security for a very long time. From the tragic moments of 9/11 and the organization of our Homeland Security Committee as a select committee, and then the final committee, I have been involved in these issues. So my intent is to discuss why this is an important safety issue and an important security issue.

Again, it is to recognize that our air traffic controllers are really our first responders. It is important to note that air traffic controllers are in rural airports, in small airports, and in our major airports. My amendment would specifically speak to the busiest airports, those airports that could document on an annual basis the amount of passengers at that airport, such as Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, that is number eight.

Commercial aircraft, for example, always have at least two pilots for long hauls. Sometimes there are three for long hauls. Why would we not have the same standards for air traffic controllers? I believe it is important to ensure

the safety of the American public. There are notorious incidents that involve pilot fatigue, but there are also incidents that reflect upon the lack of air traffic controllers.

I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty, in particular, overnight at the National Airport. And I want to make the point that we are not demonizing air traffic controllers, because if you know the story, you know the individual that fell asleep had been on duty for three nights in a row. The Secretary's action evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers.

There is legislation in the Senate and there is language in the House bill that deals with the study. I frankly believe that we should have a more firm assessment, having a minimum of three, and at least two air traffic controllers to address this question.

Why do I say that? The National Air Traffic Controllers Association and their president have indicated one-person shifts are unsafe, period. The most horrifying proof of this, of course, came on August 27, 2006. In addition, it has been in the air traffic controllers' mission to have at least two people on staff or as air traffic controllers for most of their existence.

So I stand today saying that it is important that we have trained air traffic controllers. They are called certified professional controllers. But in the top 20 airports, I must ask the question: Why do we have a structure that doesn't require minimally three, at least two, and at least, if you will, would have the individual there at all times who has not been on duty for three nights in a row?

I think that this is an important step, and I would ask my colleagues to work with me as we go forward to ensure the safety and security of the Nation's skies. We are all working together, and I look forward prospectively to looking at legislation, long-term, that addresses this issue of safety and security in the Nation's air traffic control towers. They are our public servants.

Mr. Chair, my amendment calls for staffing minimums of no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during the period of airfield operations at the 20 busiest airports in the country.

We have all heard about the air traffic Supervisor who reportedly fell asleep on the job last week, forcing two airliners carrying more than 150 passengers and crew to land without direction at National Airport.

It is a blessing that the pilots had the wherewithal to handle the situation safely, securely, and without incident, but this has highlighted a serious safety and security issue in our aviation system.

Although the Supervisor at National Airport was certified to perform air traffic control, the fact that a Supervisor for the FAA who is responsible for managing air traffic controllers was working alone without any frontline air traffic controller(s) on duty, is shocking in itself. What is more shocking is that this was his fourth 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift in a row, according to USA Today.

This is not the first incident at National Airport, where a traffic control tower was left unmanned for an extended period of time.

The vast majority of air traffic controllers are hard working dedicated individuals. 365 days a year, air traffic controllers ensure that we have the safest aviation system in the world.

But Mr. Chair, we are all human and mishaps occur, which is why in the aviation system we use multiple layers and duplication to ensure for the safety of the public and the crew.

Commercial aircraft always have at least two pilots, and for long haul flights, there are three. Why would we not have similar standards for air traffic controllers performing an equally critical function?

Think about the people flying on the planes across our country. They our our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American passangers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety we must insist that Certified Professional Controllers (CPC) are always in the tower. We must set a reasonable minimum standard.

I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. The Secretary stated, ``It is not acceptable to have just one controller in the tower managing air traffic in this critical air space. I have also asked FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt to study staffing levels at other airports around the country.''

My amendment calls for a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation at the Nation's busiest airports.

After 9/11, we witnessed the vital importance of air traffic controllers in protecting our domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers also known as Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) are part of our front line of defense to protect and ensure the safety of our airspace. In the shocking aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it was air traffic controllers who monitored the air space above our nation to help keep us safe from further attacks.

Our system is clearly not impervious to the effects of human error, and all it takes is one accident for us to regret not taking the proper action on this amendment.

We must not forget the people who are the passengers in those planes that fly above American skies. They are our grandmothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives and children. They are American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety we must insist that air traffic controllers are provided with proper staffing levels to do their important and necessary jobs of keeping Americans safe.

Mr. Chair, let me end by quoting from a statement released by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association which says:

``One-person shifts are unsafe. Period. The most horrifying proof of this came on Aug. 27, 2006, when 49 people lost their lives aboard Comair Flight 191 in Lexington, Ky., when there was only one controller assigned to duty in the tower handling multiple controllers' responsibilities alone. One person staffing was wrong then and it's wrong now.''

Mr. Chair, my amendment is essential to ensure that we continue to have the safest and most secure aviation system in the world, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentleman, and let me thank Mr. Costello, as well, for working on these issues. I think both Members know my relationship to the issues of transportation security.

I would argue that having a statutory framework to work from is the appropriate approach to take. You can assess, then, whether you need three or two or whether some of the airports already have the standing amount. But we have to focus on the security of our skies, if you will, and we don't want any more tragedies to occur without some framework.

I look forward to working with both gentlemen on a framework for our air traffic controllers. I intend to work on legislation that embodies safety and security in a jurisdictional manner and working with Homeland Security, working with the Department of Transportation and our respective jurisdictional committees.

We owe this to the American public. It is my commitment to ensure that professionalism is there, that safety and security are there, and no more lives are lost because of the potential of an overly tired air traffic controller.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me and for his kind remarks.

Madam Chair, we all agree that we need a long-term FAA Reauthorization Act. The FAA and the aviation community need stability and direction that a multi-year authorization will provide. However, it's not this bill.

It is important for Members to know that H.R. 658 is a different FAA reauthorization bill from the bipartisan legislation that my colleagues and I worked together on and that passed the House three times during the 110th and 111th Congresses. That legislation would have created jobs, improved aviation safety, and provided the FAA with the resources necessary to modernize airport and air traffic control infrastructure. However, while some aspects of H.R. 658 were in prior House-passed bills and reflect some of my priorities, there are many troubling omissions and newly added provisions in the bill that are unacceptable.

I think we all agree that we must make every effort to be fiscally responsible and cut Federal spending where it makes sense given the size of the deficit. At the same time, we also have a responsibility to the American people to keep our aviation system safe and secure, to make needed improvements to our infrastructure, to strengthen the economy, to create jobs, and to remain competitive. However, I share the concerns of those in the industry that this legislation includes funding cuts that will affect safety and put the flying public at risk, devastate the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System air traffic control modernization effort, and ignore the need to strengthen our economy by creating jobs.

On the jobs issue, let me make it clear. Mr. Rahall said it and I'll say it again: This bill does not create jobs. Instead, it cuts, roughly, $2 billion over the next 4 years in the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The AIP provides funding to airports across the country for infrastructure projects, such as runways and air traffic control towers, and these projects create well-paying construction jobs. A $2 billion decrease in funding in this bill means about 70,000 jobs will be lost. I will repeat that: 70,000 jobs will be lost because of the $2 billion cut in AIP funds. In fact, it leaves so little AIP discretionary funding available that even the most important projects, such as completing runway safety areas by the congressionally mandated deadline, cannot be funded.

Second, my Republican colleagues argue that H.R. 658 directs the FAA to prioritize and to protect safety-related activities within the bill's reduced funding levels. That sounds great, but all the evidence suggests that it can't be done.

In February, the House Aviation Subcommittee held an FAA reauthorization hearing to listen to the aviation industry's stakeholders. The unified message from the industry was loud and clear: Congress cannot roll back FAA funding to 2008 levels without harming safety programs or hampering the industry. President Bush's former FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, stated, ``The prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels and stop NextGen in its tracks.''

A jobs bill? I don't think so--and neither does the person who ran the FAA under the Bush administration.

The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety-related. This Congress and the American people need to know that, if we arbitrarily cut $1 billion a year out of the FAA's budget, it absolutely will affect safety. The agency will not do more with less. It will be forced to do less with less, and cuts to these funding levels will have serious consequences.

According to the FAA, the funding reductions in this bill will cause the agency to furlough the aviation safety workforce by hundreds of employees. Fewer safety inspectors, engineers, and support personnel will adversely impact air traffic services, aviation safety certifications and the implementation of NextGen, which will end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run and cause our aviation industry to be less competitive globally.

In addition, a reduction in the workforce will likely mean the delay of important safety regulations, such as those mandated by Congress in the new aviation safety law that was enacted last year in a bipartisan vote in response to the Colgan Flight 3407 tragedy in Buffalo, New York. Further, this legislation will force important safety-related airport improvement projects to be delayed or abandoned, such as wildlife hazard assessment. These types of assessments would help airports mitigate hazards like the one that brought down U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in 2009 in which Captain Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles were forced to land in the Hudson River because a flock of geese damaged the plane's engines.

As Mr. Rahall indicated, just last week, two planes landed safely, without clearance, at Washington National Airport because, reportedly, a single person in charge at the control tower apparently fell asleep. While investigations are ongoing, we have certainly seen accidents in the past where air traffic control staffing and fatigue were a factor, such as in the August 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.

I applaud Secretary LaHood's decision to reevaluate staffing needs throughout the country. Congress will also need to closely examine air traffic control staffing and fatigue going forward; but this incident should make it clear: Now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less without compromising safety.

I know Mr. Rahall and others have talked about a provision in the legislation that I believe, too, is a ``poison pill.'' I will not go into all of the details as we will have an amendment later; but let me just say that the LaTourette-Costello amendment, I hope, will be supported by the Members of this body. It is a ``poison pill'' provision, section 903 in this legislation, that is certain to hold the legislation up in the Senate. There is no way that I see the Senate will act on that provision, and the White House, of course, has already issued a statement saying that the President will receive recommendations from his advisers to veto the bill.

If we are serious about passing a long-term FAA bill, this provision must come out. If it remains in the bill, it will be rejected by the Senate and the White House.

Madam Chair, I will again say--and I have said many times before--I will work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fair bill that cannot only pass the House but also pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President. H.R. 658 in its current form will not pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President and will require significant changes before it's enacted.

Finally, Madam Chair, let me address a couple of comments that my friend the chairman of the full committee led off with in his remarks. He indicated that the Democrats when we were in charge for all of these years and we weren't able to pass legislation, we had to have 17 extensions. I would remind my friend that both in 2007, 2009, and in 2010 we passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the FAA. It was our friends in the Senate, in fairness, that held the legislation up. It took them 3 years to pass an FAA reauthorization bill, and in fact, as my friend from Florida will remember, it was the two Senators from Tennessee that held the bill up in the Senate, and it was two issues that were held up in the Senate, and those issues involved both PFCs and DCA, the number of slots at Washington Reagan National airport.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, and hope that after we reject this bill we can go back and get a bill that accomplishes what we set out to do in the legislation, the bipartisan legislation that we passed last year.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we support the gentleman's amendment.

This is a provision that was contained in the FAA bill that was passed, H.R. 915 and H.R. 1586, that passed this Congress with bipartisan support. We strongly support the gentleman's amendment and ask our colleagues to support it as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The amendment is very clear. It's simple. It's to the point. It requires the FAA, when certificating a repair station, whether domestic or foreign, to make sure that the repair station carries out a consistent screening of its employees for criminal records. I mean, it is very clear. It is to the point.

The amendment complies with all of our obligations under international law, and the amendment will move the FAA forward in creating one level of safety, both for domestic and international repair stations.

Mr. Chairman, we support the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman may or may not know that this is the one issue that held us up from getting an FAA reauthorization bill in the last Congress. In fact, we could not get the bill out of the Senate because of this issue. It would, in fact, be an earmark for one airline.

I support the language that is currently in the bill. It's taken years for us to negotiate where we are with this issue, and I, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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