Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 658) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

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 Nine were withdrawn.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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

House Resolution 189 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. The rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members of the minority and majority to participate in the debate.

This structured rule has made in order dozens of amendments on a wide range of provisions in this bill, but also in transportation policy in general.

In addition to the 1 hour of equally divided general debate on the bill, the rule has made 33 amendments in order, including 18 amendments from the minority, 12 from the majority, and three bipartisan amendments. Of the 24 amendments offered by the minority, 21 were made in order by this rule.

I point out the number of amendments made in order by this rule by specificity because it is so unusual. The last long-term FAA reauthorization passed Congress in 2007, and the rule for that bill allowed for only five amendments to be debated on the floor.

Since the last long-term FAA reauthorization expired, Congress has passed 18 short-term extensions, and never once has any of the rules allowed for any amendment of any kind to be debatable on this floor.

While many at home may assume that when the House debates something as important as the aviation system, their Member of Congress is given the opportunity to offer and submit ideas and debate those ideas on this floor, it has not been the case in recent years.

Today, we will likely hear from Members of the minority insisting that the underlying bill contains inadequate funding, despite the fact that our Nation is facing a $1.6 trillion deficit and we should be tightening our belts just like families across America are doing.

We may hear Members from the other side of the aisle complaining that the legislation eliminates government subsidized ``essential'' air services to rural areas of America, despite skyrocketing costs to taxpayers during an already stressful economic time.

And we may also hear from colleagues that suggest that the legislation contains a poison pill provision on rewriting union election rules, despite those rules being in place and overwhelmingly effective for the last 70 years.

To those complaints, I would specifically and simply ask and suggest: Vote for the rule. The rule allows for amendments to debate alternatives of all kinds to the base bill, to be debated and heard on this floor. To me, that is a good thing.

To be sure, some of the above issues are addressed by amendments, those issues I just mentioned, and they are all going to be debated shortly, as soon as we pass this rule and begin debate on the bill.

So, if you have any concerns with the bill, I would implore my colleagues to support the rule which allows for those concerns to be debated by the duly elected Members of this body. Amendments will pass or fail based on the merits of arguments made by proponents and opponents of these ideas, and if at the end of the process the Members are still not satisfied with the final product, they can vote against it.

However, to vote against the rule, which would allow this debate to take place, suggests satisfaction with the underlying bill as it is currently written. And I would understand that position, because I support the bill as well. I support passing a 4-year extension that would allow for long-term aviation system planning instead of a merely short-term cookie-cutter fix that accomplishes very, very little.

I support tightening our belt and rolling back funding to 2008 levels to save taxpayers $4 billion over the next several years.

I support consolidating aging, obsolete and unnecessary FAA facilities and expanding the cost-effective contract tower program, which allows airports to utilize privately operated, more efficient control towers.

I support passing a reauthorization that is 100 percent free of earmarks, tax increases or passenger facility charges. And the list goes on.

But most importantly, this debate we have here on the floor right now is for this particular rule. If you don't support these things, the rule allows Members to bring alternative proposals before this House for an open and honest debate.

So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying legislation. The committees of jurisdiction have worked to provide us a long-term reauthorization that can streamline the modernization of our aviation system while ending the practice of short-term fixes when it comes to funding this crucial service. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: I came here to talk about the rule. I didn't come here to talk necessarily about the underlying bill, although I do support the underlying bill. The rule is what is before us right now, not necessarily the policy that is underneath

it. We will be discussing that. There will be amendments offered that could change many of the things spoken of by my good friend from Massachusetts.

But I ran for election to this House of Representatives based on the fact that I told people America is not broken; Washington is. One of the things that was broken in Washington was the process. The process that I saw, the process that was inherited by our own Speaker, was a process based on a pyramid of power, and that pyramid of power was so high, it was as high as the Space Needle, probably, and a few people at the top of that pyramid are the ones that made the decision, not anyone else.

So why were there so many closed rules? Because the pyramid of power said this is what we're going to do and this is what you've got to do, and you've got to go vote, unfortunately. That is what I came here to change, and I think the Speaker did, too, and he created a process by which there were amendments offered on the floor of this House on these bills so people can address the problems that they have.

So he has pushed down the pyramid of power and spread out the base so every single Member had an opportunity to file an amendment, and almost every one of those were made available to be used on the floor of this House by this rule. It was done because we want the membership, as the Speaker has said, he wants this to be the people's House. He wants the people to have an opportunity to have their Member heard on particular issues and particular amendments.

Yes, there will be debate on this bill, there will be debate on the underlying measure, and we will be talking about that and I will be voting for that. But that is not what we are here to talk about right now, and, that is, there is a process. It was broken, and we are doing everything we can to fix it. This rule helps do that.

This rule is a rule that allows for open and honest debate on amendments, on the bill itself, and, to me, that is a great improvement over where we have been in the past. So push down that pyramid of power. Spread out the base. Let every Member be a player. Do it by voting for this rule.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I still want to bring it back to the issue at hand. We're talking about a rule here, and I have found that no matter what you're making--you could be making widgets or you could be making laws--if the process is flawed, whatever you manufacture, whatever you make is flawed. And that's what we're trying to improve here.

The previous Congress, I believe, had a flawed process. This is an improvement. It allows for 33 amendments. I will remind everyone there were 18 extensions of this particular piece of legislation over the past several years. Not one of them ever, ever had an amendment offered on the floor of this House. This is one piece of legislation with 33 amendments being offered. That, to me, is an improved process.

What happens when you improve the process? When you improve the process, the product is always going to improve. I have a business, and I know, Mr. Speaker, you do. And you know that everything you can do starts with first making that process better. That's what we're doing. That's what this rule does. It improves the process, and by improving the process, the product that's produced by this House--which is not in question right now because there are 33 amendments filed for this underlying bill that have been made available for this House to debate. So we don't know what the final product is going to be, and we'll have to wait and see. That's a whole lot better process than coming in and voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on a particular piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the House again we're talking about this rule. And there was an opportunity to file amendments on all the issues that are being brought up.

There was an amendment filed on that very issue. It wasn't my fault it was withdrawn. It was the sponsor's fault it was withdrawn. Had it not been, there might have been a difference. It might have been heard here. We might have been able to discuss and wouldn't have to discuss it while we're discussing a rule. But for some reason it was withdrawn.

I also want to remind the membership that last Congress, zero open rules. Zero. None. No amendments were offered on this floor. It was like a silence that existed for a long period of time. No Member could stand up and give an amendment to any type of piece of legislation. That's a sad thing. That, to me, is a broken process.

And I'm glad Chairman Dreier came because he too, along with the Speaker, has said we want to have as open a process as we possibly can. We want to allow for amendments. We want to allow for opportunities in a process that's better than last time; that as we improve this process, we're also going to improve the policy that we present to this floor and to the public once it passes and it's signed by the President.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to go back again to where we were. We are talking about a rule. We are talking about a process, a good process, that allows for amendments. I know that the other side is thinking, Wow, we've got to come in here and argue this bill. We've got to argue the underlying part. You don't. You've got plenty of time to do it because this rule will allow for good, lengthy debate, not only on the bill, itself, but also on the 33 amendments that have been offered.

I would encourage them to think about the fact that this rule is what we are voting on. This rule is a good rule and an open process, one that allows for every Member to participate. I would tell them, again, to vote for this rule. That's my response to any of the criticisms of this bill.

Yes, they're going to be addressed by an amendment. Come make your case, and see if you can pass it.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more accountable, transparent, and open process than the minority allowed during previous Congresses. Today's bill is another step in that right direction, an

example of the House Republicans' commitment to reform the way things are done here in Washington. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, it went through regular order, and it was provided a structured rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer amendments, their ideas, in an open and honest debate.

While I am supportive of the underlying legislation, this vote on the rule that provides an open and transparent process, which allows 33 amendments from both sides of the aisle, where ideas and policy will rise or fall on the basis of their merit and not on any particular sponsor's party affiliation, this is what the American people expect in their elected officials.

I would like to introduce to you one of the new Americans that was born last night at 10:50. This is Claire. She is our seventh granddaughter, and we're excited about her. And she, just like the rest of the American people, believes that it is an expectation that is fulfilled by this rule, the rule that we have here before us, which is that we will have an opportunity to express ourselves in a real, transparent, open way on amendments and the underlying bill and have the opportunity to present ourselves and afford ourselves a chance to vote on each one of those proposals.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of bringing meaningful legislation to create jobs to the floor of the House of Representatives, the new Republican majority continues to show just how out of touch they are. Two weeks ago, it was cutting off funding for National Public Radio. Yesterday, it was private school vouchers in Washington, D.C. But today's bill is even worse, because this bill will actually destroy jobs.

H.R. 658 starts by reducing the Federal Aviation Administration's funding back to the Republicans' favorite sound bite number of FY 2008 levels. We know that every $1 billion of Federal investment in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. That is 35,000 Americans who can pay their mortgages and stay in their homes, 35,000 Americans that can better afford to put their kids through college, 35,000 Americans that could help our economy to recover.

Instead, H.R. 658 cuts almost $2 billion from the Airport Improvement Program, which provides grants to airports for constructing and improving runways and terminals. This provision alone will cost us 70,000 jobs over the course of this 4-year authorization period.

H.R. 658's reduced funding levels will result in the layoffs of hundreds of safety inspectors, engineers and support personnel. These drastic cuts will also delay transitioning our outdated air traffic control system to the modern NextGen system. Without 21st century infrastructure and technology, the United States cannot keep up with our global competitors. It is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the FAA reauthorization bills have garnered a great deal of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this time is very different because, in addition to the inadequate funding levels, this bill continues an emerging and disturbing Republican trend toward destroying the collective bargaining rights for American workers. From Wisconsin to Ohio to Maine, we have seen how Republican politicians are attempting to destroy a century of hard-fought labor protections. This bill represents more of the same.

This bill would reverse a National Mediation Board rule that allows a majority of those voting in aviation and rail union elections to decide the outcome. Instead, tea party extremists want to count workers who chose not to vote as automatic ``noes'' against the union.

I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to use that same standard in congressional elections? I wonder if they would agree that every registered voter who didn't vote, for whatever reason, last November would automatically be counted as a ``no'' vote against them? I doubt it, because in the 2010 midterm elections, 40.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots nationwide.

Under the standard in this bill, not a single current Member of Congress would have won election last year. Not one. Let me make this a little more clear. Neither I nor my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the new Member representing the Eighth District of Florida, would be standing here today if this undemocratic standard is enacted. In fact, my friend from Florida would have received only 23.1 percent of the vote, well below the 50 percent threshold included in this bill that he supports today.

I ask my friend from Florida, where in the Constitution does it say that any registered voter who doesn't cast a vote in an election has their vote counted as a ``no''? If this standard doesn't make sense for Members of Congress, if we are unwilling to use it on ourselves, then it isn't fair for working people trying to organize.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, unfortunately, abandons a long and proud tradition of bipartisanship on the Transportation Committee, which I am honored to say I once had the privilege of serving on, and I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

By the way, we have yet to have a truly open rule in this Congress. Notwithstanding the promises that we would see nothing but open rules, we have yet to have a single truly open rule. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his efforts on trying to promote fairness and would reiterate that the issue in question has no business being in this bill. This should not have been put into this bill. I consider it a poison pill. Again, I think it reflects this troubling pattern that we see all across the country where my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be siding against working people.

I would also just say about the process that we were told that there would be open rules, open rules, open rules. We have not had one. Every member on the Republican side in the Rules Committee has been given an opportunity to vote for an open rule, and they have voted it down every single time.

This afternoon we're going to take up this bill, this deem and pass bill, or whatever people are calling it, which I think is not constitutionally sound but nonetheless we're bringing it up. We'll have another opportunity then to have a vote on an open rule. I wonder where my friends on the Republican side will be on opening up that process. My guess is it will come to the floor either under a closed rule or very restrictive process. So let's be clear: There's not been one truly open rule yet.

At this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Let's talk about process. Notwithstanding the promises of open rules, we've been here for 13 weeks and not a single open rule. Not a single open rule. And I will tell you that there's something wrong with the process when after all this time we have yet to do anything to help create jobs or promote jobs in this country. Jobs are the most important issue.

A couple of weeks ago, we were dealing with National Public Radio. It was brought to the floor under an emergency rule. An emergency rule. What

kind of process is that? You would think that we were going to talk about something important like the potential war in Libya or about how we put people back to work. Instead an emergency rule was utilized to bring a bill to defund National Public Radio. There's something wrong with this process when we're talking about that and not talking about jobs.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I've listened with great interest. My friend from California (Mr. Dreier) kind of amended a little bit what the Republican majority promised. I think I heard him right, that open rules now are only limited to appropriations bills and nothing else.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his clarification.

It seems like, to me, a little bit of revisionist history, but I guess later this afternoon we're going to rewrite the Constitution, so why not rewrite history? We were promised open rules. Under the definition of an ``open rule,'' we have not had one single open rule in this Congress. Again, this afternoon, we are going to be dealing in the Rules Committee with the demon and pass a bill.

We had on this floor, not too long ago, the reading of the Constitution. I guess my friends on the other side of the aisle weren't paying attention, because what they are trying to do this afternoon, in my opinion, or, I think, in anybody's opinion, doesn't fit with the Constitution. It will be interesting to see whether or not that comes to the floor under an open process. My guess is it will be a very restrictive process, which we've become accustomed to.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am amazed by the comments of the gentleman from Florida when it comes to rules because when we were in charge of the House, I don't recall a single time where the gentleman came before the Rules Committee and did not advocate for an open rule. This is not an open rule.

Members who have ideas that they want to bring to the floor in response to amendments that are being offered will be denied that opportunity, and there is a restriction on the ability of Members to be able to participate in the debate. Under a true open rule, every Member would have at least 5 minutes, if they chose, to be able to talk on a bill. So it's interesting this revisionist history by the Republicans who promised open rules but have not produced a single open rule yet. That's just a fact, and we can spin it any way you want to, but you promised open rules, and we haven't seen a single one yet.

Now, as far as the bill goes, H.R. 658, one of the reasons why we are concerned is because this is a job-destroying bill. We should be obsessed in this Congress about protecting jobs and creating jobs; yet, what we have seen is attention being given to everything else but jobs. A couple of weeks ago, we spent a whole week on National Public Radio, should we defund National Public Radio when people are out of work. And here you bring a bill, H.R. 658, to the floor that will destroy American jobs with $4 billion in cuts that will have dire consequences for our Nation's infrastructure, jobs and economy.

The aviation industry, I will remind my friend, accounts for nearly 11 million American jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This Republican bill would cut the airport improvement grants for runway maintenance and safety enhancements by almost $2 billion, costing us 70,000 jobs, especially hurting small airports. The Senate measure, passed with a bipartisan majority, adds tens of thousands of jobs.

Now, there are cuts in this bill that would also lead to a reduction in safety personnel and delay important air safety initiatives, a bad choice for the flying public as highlighted by the recent Reagan National incident.

In February, the FAA administrator under President George W. Bush, Marion Blakey, stated that ``the prospect is really devastating to our jobs and to our future, if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels and stop NextGen in its tracks.''

This bill also eliminates essential air service for 110 rural communities needed to connect them with global commerce, support local jobs and spur economic growth. It's important to invest in our infrastructure in order to keep this economy strong.

And this bill, as has been said over and over again, extends the assault on American workers, collective bargaining, and the middle class to workers in the aviation and railroad sectors by overturning a rule for union elections which, as with other elections, calls for a majority of votes cast to win. This continues this pattern, this assault on American workers.

I ask my friends on the Republican side, when did the American worker become the bad guy? My friends on the other side go out of their way to protect Wall Street. Under their open process, when they brought up their H.R. 1, their bill that cuts all these essential programs, they wrote it in a way that it protected the taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies so we couldn't get at them. It protected all these special interest tax loopholes that are there for big business and big corporations. And after what happened to our economy, this mess that was created in large part by Wall Street, here we go again with this Republican majority attacking working families, workers.

Well, someone has got to stand up for working families and workers, and I'm glad that there are Members on my side of the aisle that are willing to do that. This controversial provision should not be in this bill. This is a throwaway to the extreme right wing, and it should not be in this bill.

Madam Speaker, let me close by saying we need to start talking about jobs and how we protect jobs and create jobs. This bill, because of the dramatic cuts in this bill, will destroy jobs. You want to find savings, go after taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. You want to find savings, then if you're going to fight these wars, pay for it. You want to find savings, close some of these grotesque tax loopholes for the richest interests in this country. Instead, you go after things that help average American families, that go after American workers.

This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, which is not open, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.