Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Petri, for his leadership. Also Mr. Costello, who formerly chaired the committee and now is the ranking member. I want to thank him for his dedication to our Nation's aviation system, safety. And also Mr. Rahall. You couldn't ask for better partners. Mr. Rahall is the Democrat leader of the committee, and we have a great working relationship. We have had a great working relationship to try to move forward legislation like a long-term reauthorization of FAA and other major transportation legislation that has been mired in delay. Quite frankly, my colleagues, I find myself very frustrated being here.

Now, this is the 21st extension. I complimented and don't let me not compliment the staff on both sides. We have great professionals that deal with this.

The Congress is fortunate and the Nation is blessed to have the kind of leadership we have with staff working on these important issues to move what accounts for about 8 to 9 percent of our GDP. That's the aviation industry forward, setting the policy, the programs, the funding formula, all those things these folks are responsible for. And they're good stewards of that responsibility. So I thank them in advance. I also want to thank Senator Rockefeller, Mr. Speaker, and others who have worked with us trying to bring this to a conclusion. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking Republican on the Senate side, worked in good faith to try to get this, again, inexcusable delay in passing the long-term reauthorization.

That being said, again, I find myself so frustrated. This is the 21st delay. We have a former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello. Mr. Petri now chairs it. He's been active on this. I was chairman for 6 years of the subcommittee. We were all wanting to do the same thing-- and that's move forward with reauthorization.

The irony of this is I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation in 2003, when we were wrote the last reauthorization. And we did that in some 6 months. And there were controversial provisions. That 4-year bill expired in 2007. We have not passed a reauthorization, even when the other side had humongous numbers in this Chamber and control of the other body. At one point, I think 60 votes to get something done. Nothing was done. Seventeen extensions under their watch. And, quite frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is the fourth extension. But I'm trying to do in 6 or 7 months what couldn't be done in almost 5 years. And we're going to get it done. We're going to get it done one way or the other.

Now, we have also done three what they call clean extensions to move this process forward. And we did need some time. You have to be reasonable because this is a new Congress. The other body, the Senate, passed their bill in February. We passed the first day in April our legislation. And here we find ourselves on the fourth, again, extension, which is regrettable.

All this, I say, my colleagues, could be resolved I think in a matter of an hour. There's been great work and discussions, informal discussions, in what we call preconference, where some of the principles get together and discuss the terms. All these issues are not new. Mr. Costello and I, Mr. Oberstar and I, we had discussed this. In fact, I think the other body took up the pending legislation from last time. My goodness, it was pending for 48 months. So there's no new issues here. Again, we find ourselves stalled in the process.

That being said, I call on the Members to pass this extension. This is a clean extension, except for one change; and it has two parts. The first part deals with Essential Air Service. That's the program that underwrites, again, routes for air service from local communities. This is a program that started at about $50 million a decade ago and now is approaching $200 million. We had a vote here in the House, and we decided to sunset that program, I guess with the exception of two of our exceptional States, Hawaii and Alaska, who have some unique geographic limitations on service. But the other body passed a provision, the Senate, passed a provision that would eliminate service based on distance, I think it's 90 miles, and it affected some 10 communities. Mr. Speaker, I'll insert in the Record the 10 communities affected.

So this is language that the other body passed and we are including. Now, I have made one exception, and it affects three airports, three States: Nevada, Montana, and New Mexico. A provision I put in is that no State or no airport operation that has service where the subsidy exceeds a thousand dollars a ticket can receive that subsidy. I don't think that's unreasonable, when we've got from now until the beginning of August to get our Nation's finances together. I want to see folks come down here to vote to continue to see subsidies for more than a thousand. One of these subsidies, and I won't state the State but you can figure it out, is $3,719 per passenger. That's obscene when our country is on the verge of debt crises and disaster.

If I have to take the entire reauthorization and we continue--now this extends through the 16th of September. I'm putting everybody on notice that each time we will pass reauthorization, if we have to do it extension by extension. So we're starting with this small part of what the other body has passed, and I'm adding what I think is a reasonable provision. A thousand-dollar subsidy in itself is almost obscene, if you ask the average Member of Congress. In fact, when I went to the Rules Committee, one of the members on the other side of the aisle was stunned that we were paying those kinds of fees.

Now, don't come here and tell me that we don't legislate on extensions. In fact, the other body put an entire bill, a regional safety legislation, on one of the past 17 extensions. So we've done this before. We need to work together on this. I would implore Members on both sides of the aisle to support this because this is in the people's interest. This has to move forward. I don't know of any other mechanism. I certainly am not going to allow this fiasco to continue and certainly I don't want the FAA to close down at midnight on Friday night. And that won't happen. Essential services will continue. Air traffic controllers will be at their job. There may be some people furloughed. But it is not my fault. It will be the responsibility of the other body, who does not take this up and pass it. They will be furloughing people and putting people out of jobs.

If you want to see people work, then let's pass the FAA bill. It has the Next Generation air traffic control provisions. It has safety provisions in there that are long overdue.

So, again, I'm a bit frustrated. I want the best for the Nation. I want the best for our air traffic control system, our aviation system, and thousands of people who depend--not just working in the Federal Government, but in this important industry--to move forward. Again, I'm so disappointed. But we're going to find one way. I may not be the most powerful Member, I may not be the most intelligent Member, I may not be the highest ranking Member. But I'll tell you what: I am a persistent Member. And we will pass reauthorization one way or another. We're going to get it done. So I appreciate everyone's indulgence in working with me on this project.

Thank you so much for yielding again.

The question has been brought up to try to shift the responsibility for, again, the possibility of the other body's not acting here to the question of the Republicans not appointing conferees.

I might point out just for the record that in the 110th Congress-- this is for an entire 2 years--the Senate never passed an FAA reauthorization bill, so we never even got to preconference. We never got to the issue. So they never appointed conferees. There was a bill passed. And, again, huge majorities on both sides.

In the 111th Congress, the House and Senate passed FAA reauthorizations and preconferenced for 5 months without naming conferees. They never named any conferees.

This process of preconferencing is part of the bipartisan nature of our committee and our work and bicameral discussions. As I said, they've been excellent. The staff has been working well. These aren't new issues. The other side controlled the process for some 4 years. The bills have been out there for some time.

I have the commitment from the leadership, when we are ready to go and having resolved most of the issues, and, again, there are only a couple and everyone knows what they are, I think that they can fall in place. But we need the leadership of the other body, in fact, the leader of the other body, to step forward and act in a responsible manner in dealing with me or the leadership of the House or someone in responding to a major impediment that we have to move this process forward. Then our leadership has said they will appoint conferees. We can sit down, resolve those issues in a public forum, and pass this. We could do that tomorrow.

So, again, it's not the question of appointing conferees. And if I have to take more strident measures to get this job done, we're going to get the job done one way or the other, as I said.

Now, I had a Republican ask me to modify the language that the Senate passed before the Rules Committee. There's a tape. You can all see it; it's part of the Record. And I said, No, I don't want to do that. I want to take what the Senate passed. The only difference here in the Essential Air Service is that I provided language that says that if you get more than a $1,000 subsidy that affects three airports, that will not be allowed. That's the only thing standing between us and shutting down part of our Federal Aviation Administration.

Thank you, my colleagues.

You just heard the comments. Again, I couldn't have a better friend or compatriot on many issues and on many improvements that we've made to transportation on the committee together: Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon. He said this used to be a legislative body. Yes, it was a legislative body before the other side took over 4 years ago and closed down quite a bit of the process.

Now, has this been an open process on the FAA reauthorization? I submit to you that it has been from the committee.

Go back and check the committee records. We held more votes on this FAA reauthorization in committee than we held probably for the last 6 years--I know certainly for the last 4 years--on that one piece of legislation. On the floor, we had an open process. I think there were some 30 amendments, and 23, I believe, were made in order. So, unless they were duplicative or the Rules Committee took them out, it was an open process as opposed to a closed process with closed rules that, again, we had on major pieces of legislation for some time. So this has been an open process.

The House is going to act. The House is going to pass this. If we have to pass additional extensions, as I said, with the rest of the reauthorization piece by piece, then we are going to pass a reauthorization to set the policy, the programs, the projects, and the priorities for our aviation industry and for FAA. The only projects that will be stopped are projects for which, if the other body doesn't act on this extension, they will be responsible for.

The only difference in the extension--and we gave them three clean extensions, and this is a clean extension with their provision that passed with their language unanimously in the other body--is that I added three States--actually, three airports--that subsidized in excess of $1,000 per ticket, per passenger.

Again, when the Nation is going down the tubes almost literally because of debt, we can't make one little, tiny change and move this process forward? keep people working? put safety provisions that are in this reauthorization that we don't have now and move forward with it? There is something wrong.

Madam Speaker, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee went through the list of the airports that are within 90 miles that would be affected by the provisions of this extension.

Now, all of those 10 airports were included in an amendment and a provision that's in the Senate bill and passed unanimously. The only difference, and he spoke briefly to one of them, again is the provision that I put in putting a restriction on paying more than a thousand dollars per ticket, per passenger subsidy. Those subsidies start in Montana at one airport with $1,357.

Another airport, one airport in New Mexico, has a subsidization per ticket per passenger of $1,563.

Now the granddaddy, the big enchilada in this whole thing is one airport in Nevada. Every ticket is subsidized $3,719.

Now you're telling me that they are going to close down parts of the FAA to preserve this subsidy when this Nation is on the verge of a financial debt crisis unheard of in the history of our Nation.

So, again, I've tried to deal on a bipartisan, bicameral basis working with folks to get this done. Twenty-one extensions over 4 years. I'm not adding an entire bill. I'm adding that one provision. The other side added in one of their extensions an entire bill.

The other language Mr. Petri spoke to was 10 airports that are within the distance of 90 miles that the Senate passed unanimously. So it's not like I am taking some language.

A Republican tried to change that in the Rules Committee, and I recommended against it. And we did not change it because, again, I want to have language that the Senate passed.

So that's what we boil down to on the eve of a crisis with FAA, on the eve of a crisis with our Nation's finances, we're going to come and vote here. And I want people to go back and say, ``I voted for a $3,700 subsidy for air service for one passenger for one ticket.'' I want to see that list of names.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011. This is the 21st extension of the FAA authority to fund airport improvement projects at current levels, through September 16, 2011. Regrettably, unlike all of the prior 20 extensions of the FAA authority, this bill includes a policy rider eliminating Essential Air Service eligibility for 13 airports in small and rural communities.

The issue today is not whether we support the Essential Air Service program or not. We should not be legislating on this extension. We should have a clean extension so we can move it over to the Senate and make certain that the FAA is funded through September 16.

There have been no hearings on proposals to reduce EAS this Congress and no hearings on this bill either. Members with affected communities should be allowed to make their case to the House and offer amendments to the bill that would preserve service to their communities.

Instead, this extension is inviting opposition and creating major problems because the Senate has indicated they will not accept this extension. Policy riders should be left out of the extension and taken up by the House and Senate conferees, if, in fact, we ever have conferees appointed here in the House.

Earlier this year, the House and Senate both approved comprehensive FAA reauthorization bills. In February, the Senate passed the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 87-8. Passage of the Senate bill was widely applauded by both labor and industry stakeholders, and it was estimated the bill would create at least 10,000 jobs.

In contrast, in April of this year, the House passed an extremely controversial H.R. 658 by a vote of 223-196, the narrowest vote margin for House passage of an FAA reauthorization bill in nearly three decades. The bill has been harshly criticized by labor and industry stakeholders because it would undermine aviation safety, slash FAA funding, and destroy good-paying airport construction jobs.

Since Chairman Mica introduced the FAA reauthorization bill, we have been warned and we have warned, actually, that it contains a number of controversial poison pill provisions that seriously jeopardize the enactment of a long-term reauthorization act this year.

The failure to enact a long-term FAA reauthorization act is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and the Nation tens of thousands of good- paying jobs. Short-term stopgap funding authorizations have stymied airport construction, job creation, and the FAA's overall ability to efficiently administer its programs. Further, multiple FAA extension acts have created uncertainty among local airport officials regarding the total amount of Federal funding available this year for airport construction. As a result, State and local airport officials are advancing fewer projects, less new construction is moving forward, and fewer jobs are being created.

Last week the Airports Council International of North America sent a letter stating that if Congress did not extend the airport grant program through September 30, ``safety and security projects will go unfunded and the much needed jobs associated with these projects will not materialize.'' So I am puzzled why the majority would disregard this warning. It is time that we move forward and that we get a clean extension so we in fact can move to conference and get a bill that is agreed upon that we can bring to the floor that can be signed by the President.

For the majority of the House who claims to care about creating jobs, reducing bureaucracy, and listening to the business community, this extension bill goes out of its way to create unnecessary red tape and problems.

The FAA needs the certainty, stability, and direction that a long- term

reauthorization act provides. Further, the American people and the American public deserve a long-term FAA reauthorization act that will create jobs, improve safety, and modernize our infrastructure. We need to stop playing partisan games, quit posturing, and pass a clean extension through September 16, appoint conferees, and in fact reach agreement on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield myself 10 seconds just to make a point to the chairman.

The 5-month period that he referred to, one, the Republicans in the Senate, as he knows, blocked our ability to appoint conferees. In particular, the Senators from Tennessee put a hold on it until the Colgan families made their point to let the hold move forward.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we heard from Chairman Mica, who we have worked with very closely. He has done, I think, his very best up to this point to try and get an FAA reauthorization bill both out of the House and to the point where we can get it to a conference committee.

So he said he is very frustrated with the process. We are very frustrated with the process. And today the extension that the majority is offering even frustrates us more because we know that this is an extension, not a clean extension, but it has a rider on it involving Essential Air Services.

The debate today and the discussion about this extension is not about Essential Air Service. Some members may support Essential Air Service, others may not support it. There's been a lot said on the floor today about subsidizing a $3,000 subsidy per ticket. Just for the record, we are not debating that. That is to be taken up by conferees if we ever get to conference. Members can, in fact, have their opportunity to make changes in the EAS program at that time. It should not be a part of this extension.

But for the record let me say that in reference to an airport that was mentioned in Montana, it is actually 607 miles from Denver, to the Denver airport. So if you live in that community, it's not just a short drive to get in a rental car and drive to the Denver Airport. Also, the Nevada airport that was

referenced from Salt Lake City, you are talking 234 miles. And the list goes on and on.

So that's an issue that we can debate at the appropriate time. Some changes may need to be made to the Essential Air Service program. But I think also we need to keep in mind, we're not just talking about passengers getting from point A to point B when there's hundreds and hundreds of miles to get to the nearest large hub airport to catch a flight, but we're also talking about moving medical supplies, donor organs, and a number of other things. So it's not just passengers.

And let me also say, my friend Mr. Mica mentioned as well that we've had an open process here. Well, in fact, we have not. The process has not been open on this extension. In fact, the majority dropped the bill on Friday without consulting the minority. They did not consult with us about what may be in the extension. In addition to that, they went to Rules Committee and asked for a closed rule so that no Member who might be affected by this legislation or might have an Essential Air Service airport in their district that may want to go to the Rules Committee and, in fact, get an open rule or come to the floor to debate the merits of keeping their airport on the EAS program, they did not have that opportunity because the majority asked for a closed rule.

Had the majority come to us in the minority and said, We want a clean extension; we want to move it forward, we wouldn't be here today. We, in fact, would probably have voice voted this extension. It would have gone to the Senate. It would have been voice voted there. And, in fact, we would have been a step closer to making certain that the FAA is able to operate after the deadline on Saturday.

Finally, let me say that we are frustrated because I've heard Chairman Mica say many times and, as the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, has said, We have worked closely together. We have done everything we can do in order to work together with Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri in order to get a bill. But I have read reports and I have just heard Mr. Mica say on the floor again today that, you know, we could wrap this conference up in 20 minutes. And he said today we could wrap it up within an hour, that there is only one issue that is remaining.

Just for the record, let me say, if that's the case, we have not been consulted on that one issue. There are several issues. And just for the record, I would say major issues that have not been resolved on our side, on the House side between the majority and minority, let alone with the other body are: one, funding levels; two, Essential Air Service; three is repeal of the National Mediation Board rule; four is the DCA perimeter rule, often referred to as ``slots.''

Other outstanding issues are occupational safety and health protection for flight attendants, the 3-hour rule for tarmac delays, the lithium battery issue, and the aircraft activity disclosure to the public, the BARR program. And I have a list of other things to our knowledge that have not been resolved.

So when the chairman or others say that we could wrap this up in 20 minutes or in 1 hour, I don't believe that is the case. In fact, I know it's not the case. We have not been consulted or negotiated to the extent that we could reach an agreement among ourselves on the House side, let alone with our colleagues over in the other body. So let me just say that it's a disappointment to me.

We have worked closely together to move the FAA extension on a permanent basis. We are here on Wednesday. The FAA extension, in fact, will expire--the FAA will have to lay off employees this Saturday if, in fact, this extension is not approved by both bodies and sent to the President. And the Senate has already told us that they are not going to accept this extension with this rider, in fact, in the extension. They will approve the clean extension. And it's my understanding the other body is going to pass a clean extension and send it over here sometime today or by the end of the week.

It would be my hope that the majority would, in fact, accept a clean extension so that the FAA can continue to serve the flying public and do all of the things that are essential to keeping the safest aviation system in the world as safe as possible so that we can begin to try and get a permanent bill and a long-term bill as well.

Finally, I would conclude by saying that we need to appoint conferees. The Senate has passed their bill in February of this year. We have passed our bill in April. And we are here now in the latter part of July, and Chairman Mica is saying that all of these issues have been resolved but one, and we do not even have conferees appointed. So I would just encourage the leadership--Ranking Member Rahall. And I have sent a letter to the Speaker and to the leadership and to the majority saying, Look, let's appoint conferees. The Senate has appointed conferees.

The only opportunity we had to appoint conferees in the last Congress was, in fact, stifled and held up by the Senate and, frankly, by two Senators from the State of Tennessee over one issue.

Let's get the nonsense behind us. There are things in the Essential Air program that I would like to see changed. There are things in the bill that I would like to see us reach an agreement on. The only way to do that is to get an extension passed so the FAA can get past Saturday and operate until September 16. It will give us an opportunity to appoint conferees so that we can meet with the conferees who have already been appointed in the other body to reach a permanent agreement.

The American people deserve better than what they're getting today on the floor of this House, and the American people deserve to know that we, in fact, are doing everything that we can to move forward to keep the safest aviation system in the world exactly that--the leader in safety around the world.

So with that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this extension in the hopes that we could pass a clean extension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV, extends aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority at current funding levels through September 16 of this year while also imposing new restrictions on the Essential Air Service program.

Frankly, it is no substitute for a long-term Federal Aviation Administration authorization, and casts further doubt on airport construction and safety improvements instead of ensuring air passenger safety, creating jobs, or investing in air traffic control modernization.

As I'm sure most Americans would agree, the word ``uncertain'' does not belong in a conversation about our Nation's aviation system and it certainly does not belong in the same sentence as air passenger safety. I note a friend in the House who is a pilot agrees with that statement. Over the course of almost 4 years, however, great uncertainty surrounding long-term funding for the FAA has threatened and continues to threaten both. Without steady funding, the FAA is unable to best manage the long-term programs and projects that are vital to the future of our aviation system, including lifesaving airport safety improvements and the transition to the very important Next Generation Air Transportation System that we know as NextGen.

Make no mistake, the United States has the safest, most efficient aviation system in the world. We can all thank our highly skilled, dedicated aviation professionals for that. But in order to ensure that it remains that way, we must stop kicking the FAA reauthorization can further down the road. I know these cans around here get tired of being kicked down the road.

The measure before us is the 21st short-term FAA extension to be considered since the last FAA authorization bill. Vision 100 expired at the end of September 2007. I repeat: This is the 21st short-term FAA extension we have considered in less than 4 years. It is also the sixth extension of operation authority for fiscal year 2011. Meanwhile, there has been no progress for weeks on a long-term authorization.

While short-term extensions have their place in the legislative process, they should be the exception, not the rule, especially when authorizing the important safety and modernization activities of the FAA. The extension not only fails to address the long-term aviation needs of our Nation, but also denies many of our small and rural communities the air service and economic opportunity made possible by the Essential Air Service program.

By including these policy riders, House Republicans risk a shutdown of our aviation system. Senator Rockefeller, after our Rules Committee meeting last night, made that very clear in a letter from him to Chairman Mica.

Instead of appointing conferees, as the Senate did 100 days ago, House Republicans seem to be pointing fingers and effectively forcing a vote on the future of the EAS program ahead of conference legislation. While House Republicans continue to play the blame game with the Senate, American businesses and workers are losing out on much needed economic opportunities.

Aviation, as we all know, is an economic engine for the United States, contributing $1.3 trillion to our economy, accounting for more than 11.5 million jobs and $396 billion in earnings, and contributing 5.6 percent to our Nation's gross domestic product.

Without full-year funding for the FAA, local officials are unable to move forward with project proposals. Because of this, the FAA is an estimated $800 million to $1 billion behind in obligating funding, which translates to tens of thousands of jobs. Furthermore, if the FAA is unable to utilize these funds before the end of the fiscal year, they risk being reprogrammed or rescinded. This, in my view, is irresponsible, dangerous, and unacceptable. The FAA will have to do more with less, which reduces its ability to help airports finance safety improvements such as special runway overshoot areas, runway resurfacing, proper signage and lighting, and equipment to prevent snow and ice buildup on runways.

These measures not only save lives but increase efficiency at a time when air traffic is projected to continue growing significantly. According to the FAA, the number of passengers on U.S. airlines is forecasted to increase by about 75 percent within the next 20 years and to reach 1 billion passengers annually within the next decade. We must invest more in our aviation system, not less. Long-term FAA authorization should be an immediate priority.

In the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House, under Democratic leadership, passed FAA reauthorization bills that would have created jobs, improved aviation safety, and provided the FAA with the tools necessary to modernize airport and air traffic control infrastructure.

My friends on the other side should do the responsible thing and appoint conferees so that the House and Senate can work out their differences and finalize a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle are clearly preoccupied with further isolating small and rural communities than moving this debate forward. In fact, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has held no hearings specifically on the EAS program this year, nor did they hold a markup on the measure before us.

The Senate is not going to pass this. The letter from Senator Rockefeller makes it very clear, as the chair of the relevant committee in the Senate, that this is not going to pass in its form with the policy riders attached. Yet, without the ability to offer amendments on the floor, as I requested in the Rules Committee last night, to consider a clean extension, one free of the policy riders that will hurt our small and rural communities, we face a shutdown. I believe my good friend from Florida (Mr. Webster) said on Friday this short-term extension would expire and then our aviation system stands to shut down. That would be most unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I would ask my good friend from Florida whether he has any other requests for time. I am prepared to close.

In so doing, Mr. Speaker, having now fully

read Senator Rockefeller's letter, I do ask that it be made part of the Record. I will read only four sentences from it. He says to Chairman Mica:

``I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and send over a clean FAA extension and appoint conferees for the FAA reauthorization bill, as the Senate did on April 7, 2011, to move this important legislation forward. Further efforts to add policy components to FAA extensions that have not been negotiated with the Senate will likely shut the FAA down.''

As Transportation Secretary LaHood and FAA Administrator Babbitt have said, the United States faces a pivotal time in aviation history. In order to ensure the safety of the flying public and bring our air transportation system into the 21st century, the FAA needs a long-term reauthorization bill. While H.R. 2553 buys us a little more time, we cannot afford to continue ignoring the underlying problem.

Mr. Speaker, I try very much not to be as parochial as I can be in many instances, but in West Palm Beach, we are building a new airport tower, and we need the NextGen facilities. At the Fort Lauderdale Airport--that is my hometown airport--we are expanding the runway. It becomes increasingly difficult to complete the projects when money for doing so comes in increments rather than in a block that will allow that they go forward in a meaningful way.

Toward that end, the failure to enact a multiyear FAA reauthorization is just going to result in delays to much needed infrastructure improvements, including, as I have mentioned, the ground-based and NextGen technologies; and it will ultimately cost our Nation more in the long run with regard to passenger safety, jobs and the environment.

Enough is enough. We need a clean extension now in order to pass a long-term authorization as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.

United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation,

Washington DC, July 19, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

John, As you are well aware, Congress has passed 20 routine

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extensions since 2007.

I was genuinely hopeful that we would have had a

comprehensive bill after four months of negotiations, but

appreciated that a handful of difficult issues remained to be

resolved before agreement on a final bill could be reached. I

was under the impression that we were still operating on a

shared desire to complete this important legislation.

It is for this reason that I am deeply puzzled by your

decision to introduce an FAA extension with language that

adversely affects the Essential Air Service (EAS) program.

This surprise maneuver is a complete reversal from the

discussions we have been having for several months, and

strongly suggests you have not been negotiating in good

faith.

As troubling and problematic as the extension you

introduced is, I am even more taken aback by the blistering

press release you issued in conjunction with it. Its

hostility was unexpected. The tone and tenor of the release

was so different than any of our previous interactions, I

almost did not believe you wrote it.

As your press release inferred, you inserted the EAS

language into the FAA extension in retaliation for the

Senate's refusal to accept your language on the National

Mediation Board (NMB). At no point during our discussions,

have we ever linked reforms to the EAS program to language on

NMB. I made it clear from the beginning of our negotiations

that the NMB language included in your bill--or any other

language adversely impacting workers rights--could not pass

the Senate. As you know, the Senate voted on this issue last

year and our Leadership considers this matter settled. Your

attempt to punish the Senate by hurting small community air

service has backfired--this language only guarantees that the

Senate will reject the FAA extension.

As I told you on numerous occasions, EAS is critical to

West Virginia. Specifically, I discussed how Morgantown and

Clarksburg depend on the EAS program. Air service has been a

critical factor in the economies of these communities, and

drives economic growth across my state. Our every

conversation had me convinced that you appreciated the

reasons I am so dedicated to supporting this program. I

believed you when you indicated you wanted to work with me on

reaching language acceptable to both chambers. The language

in the FAA extension you introduced with Congressmen Camp and

Petri makes it harder to find a path forward on this issue.

Over the last twenty-four hours, it is my understanding

that you have asserted to others that you had no role in

developing this extension, claiming that it was a leadership

decision. If this is true, I am unclear as to why you

sponsored it, and issued such a searing press release along

with it. If you truly have no authority to make final

decisions on the FAA bill, I urge the House to formally

appoint conferees and allow me to negotiate directly with

your colleagues who can make decisions.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and send

over a clean FAA extension and appoint conferees for the FAA

reauthorization bill, as the Senate did on April 7, 2011, to

move this important legislation forward. Further efforts to

add policy components to FAA extensions that have not been

negotiated with the Senate will likely shut the FAA down. You

need to think about this very, very carefully. Any

consequences resulting from such an action will fall squarely

on your shoulders. Right now you are in control of the

agency's immediate future.

Sincerely,

John D. Rockefeller IV.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 357, I call up the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for the third consecutive Congress, we are working to pass a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. This year both the House and Senate passed their own reauthorizations; but, unfortunately, negotiations with the Senate have slowed, and it is necessary for us to pass another extension to enable the FAA to continue to operate.

This bill is a short-term extension of FAA funding and programs through September 16 at current levels. This extension also includes important reforms to the Essential Air Service program. These reforms could result in as much as $20 million in savings for the American taxpayer.

The first reform provision was adopted unanimously by the Senate and is included in its reauthorization bill. That provides that only airports that are 90 miles or more away from a large- or medium-hub airport would be eligible to participate in the Essential Air Service-- 90 miles away. People can obviously and in most instances would prefer to drive 90 miles rather than take a connecting flight. It seems like a sensible thing. We hadn't thought about it when we passed our original

legislation; the Senate did. We are including their reform. So we are, in effect, acceding to the Senate. In the case of one airport under the current program which is within 90 miles, we are paying a per passenger subsidy of $851, and the nearest hub is 82 miles away. That is a $10 per mile subsidy.

So the second provision dealing with Essential Air Service caps the subsidies for each passenger, in addition to the fares they pay, at $1,000. During this economically difficult time, it is not possible to justify using taxpayer dollars to pay a subsidy of $1,000 per passenger at an EAS airport, and subsidies can frequently exceed that amount. If there are difficulties with that, there is other language that would allow the executive branch to waive this provision.

The EAS provisions included in the extension are limited and sensible reforms that target the most indefensible of the subsidies. If we can't do this, what can we do, especially after 23 or 24 extensions that have been holding the whole program and the efficiency and improvements in the air infrastructure of our country hostage.

The House-passed bill actually phases out the Essential Air Services program for all but Alaska and Hawaii. We are not insisting on that at all. We are modifying that and going along with largely what the Senate itself has been suggesting in this regard. So these provisions are a compromise, and EAS will continue to be discussed as we work to finalize the bill.

As Congress tries to find a way forward to address deficit and long- term debt issues, if we can't put an end to these extravagant subsidies, then we will never be able to rein in spending where really hard decisions are necessary.

Although I continue to hold out hope that we will reach a compromise with the Senate in the near future, it is necessary to pass this extension to provide the FAA with continued funding authority and provide needed EAS reform. Ultimately, we need to get back to the negotiating table to work out a long-term FAA bill. Short-term extensions are not the way to run such an important agency.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 18, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 2553, the

``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV'' which

is expected to be scheduled for floor consideration this

week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3

of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by

extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes

to September 16, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 2553 for

Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the

bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does

not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 2553, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I would just point out to my colleagues that the provision that was changed by the National Labor Relations Board to which my colleague referred has been the law of this land for a generation. So it's not anti-labor fervor at all; it's more regular order.

Madam Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just thought, as long as we were spending some time talking about the modest cleaning up of the series of, kind of, earmarks that have accumulated over the years in the Essential Air Service program, which was referred to by the chairman of the committee as a program that started out as a true essential air service to help provide access to the outside world to very isolated communities, it has gradually been kind of earmarked, going from $50 million to some $200 million in cost. They're not isolated, but they are subsidized. God knows why.

Let me just mention a few of the areas that would be affected by these modest changes: that it has to be more than 90 miles from another airport and, secondly, that we try to cap the subsidy, unless it's varied somewhat by the Secretary, at $1,000 per seat, per flight.

One that would be affected that is currently being subsidized is Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's 82 miles from Memphis. You can't drive 82 miles, and you want the Federal Government to provide service?

Athens, Georgia, is 72 miles from Atlanta, and it's getting subsidized.

We're worrying about billions of dollars of subsidies. If we can't even do this, where do we start? They say a big journey starts with a single step, and we're not willing to take even in this small area the most modest of steps.

Harristown, Maryland, which is north of here, is 78 miles from the Dulles Airport. It's getting a subsidy of over $800 per flight, and it's right near Baltimore as well.

There is Glendive, Montana, which is 60 miles from another essential airport in Montana. It's just 60 miles. You could drive over to Sidney--but no, they're asking for a $1,357 subsidy, per passenger, flying from Glendive under this program.

Alamogordo, New Mexico, is 89 miles from a hub airport in El Paso, but instead of driving 89 miles, there continues to be a $1,500 subsidy. You can rent a car. This is a profligate, hard-to-defend use of the taxpayers' money, yet people are talking about closing the government down or the FAA down unless they can spend $1,500 to subsidize a flight when you can drive 89 miles to another airport.

This is what we're talking about, and this is why my constituents and many others are wondering when we're going to get serious out here about taking the modest steps to get our financial affairs and our stewardship of the Federal taxpayers' money under better control.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by urging my colleagues to support this 21st extension with a very, very modest change from a purely clean extension in that it yields to the Senate for a provision that's included in the Senate bill to eliminate, quote- unquote, ``Essential Air Service for airports within 90 miles of another airport.''

We've talked about the individual flight subsidy. Let me just look at this issue from another point of view to make it perfectly clear what we are talking about.

Eight of the 10 airports that would be affected are because they are within 90 miles of a hub airport. So that makes it much more convenient to just drive over. And what's the subsidy to each airport each year? Let me just mention it: Athens, Georgia, over $1 million of Federal money so that people don't have to drive 72 miles. We have Morgantown, West Virginia, right near the Pittsburgh hub, nearly $1.5 million. The same thing with Hagerstown, over $1 million so you don't have to drive 70-some miles to Dulles. Jonesboro, Arkansas, gets an $800,000 subsidy when it is right next to the Memphis International Airport. The same thing, $1.6 million going to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which is 84 miles from the Pittsburgh International Airport. Franklin/Oil City is getting a subsidy of nearly $1 million a year. They are 85 miles from the Pittsburgh International Airport. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, nearly $1.4 million, also by Pittsburgh. And Jackson, Tennessee, $1.2 million in Federal taxpayer money, which is only 86 miles from the Memphis International Airport.

It's hardly essential use of Federal taxpayer money to provide nonessential, subsidized airport service for people who could otherwise drive in an hour, hour and a half to a hub airport that most of the people in the area probably are doing already. So it's a very modest step. We are just doing what the Senate provides. I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

I withdraw my point of order, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentleman. And I want to associate myself with his very detailed and well-stated opening statement on this legislation.

I think the premise should be that all of us agree on the importance of the FAA. I have served as the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and now serve as its ranking member. Through that timeframe, I have seen the overlapping need to view particularly FAA's work and particularly air traffic controller work as part of both the safety and security of this Nation.

I remind my colleagues of the activist role that air traffic controllers in particular took during 9/11. During the massiveness of confusion and the loss of the destination or the placing of three of our major airlines and planes that were flying in, airplanes, the air traffic controller was really a team that was on the first response, if you will. So their work is enormously important.

And my colleague mentioned some numbers that I think are extremely important: $1.3 trillion is what we find as the revenue in the airline industry, 11\1/2\ million jobs, a 75 percent increase in employees within 20 years and 1 billion in the next decade. I want to say that this means that we have a great obligation to protect the American traveling public.

I also want to associate myself with the idea of not protecting our small airports and disadvantaging those airports by this legislation. And again I assume Chairman Rockefeller's comments play to that as well.

But I had offered an amendment that was sent to the Senate to establish a mandate that at the top 20 United States airports there should be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high-volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times.

Mr. Speaker, we engaged with the conference committee very diligently. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep or being locked out of the control tower or, for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times.

Now, I know that air traffic controllers reflect the diversity of America and the various ills and concerns. We also know they have long concentrated hours and it's a difficult job. Just recently there was a question of whether or not an air traffic controller was inebriated on the job, whether he drank on the job or he came to the job, he or she, with this condition. But if that was the case and there was one air traffic controller there, there's zero. If that was the case and there were two, then there was one.

I thank the gentleman.

I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer and much more secure.

The American passenger has value. Those dear souls who lost their lives on 9/11 who were not exposed to this concept of terrorism had value. The American passenger is entitled to safety and security. Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives, babies, family members, businesspersons, associates, colleagues. They're American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security, I believe we need more than what is presently moving in this bill that has not come to the floor, and I believe we should move on with the conferees to be appointed because, as I said, I sent my language to the initial negotiation. We need to move on so there's an opportunity for us to work this idea.

But this is more than a study. We don't need another study. We have already seen the mishaps. On 9/11 we discovered the value and importance of these particular workers, and we now have discovered the problem.

I ask my colleagues to raise the question and to question this rule and this bill, or this extension, because we are putting our American passengers in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider yet another extension for FAA programs, I rise today to discuss a key issue that I urge the conferees on the FAA Reauthorization bill to consider.

Prior to H.R. 658 being sent to the Senate, I offered an amendment to establish a mandate that at the top 20 U.S. airports, there shall be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times. This is a matter of national security.

We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep, or being locked out of the control tower, or for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times.

I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer.

The American Passenger has value. The American Passenger is entitled to Safety and Security.

Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American Passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security we must insist that Air Traffic Controllers are vigilant. To ensure their vigilance we must set reasonable minimum standards.

After 9-11, we discovered the vital importance of protecting our domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers are part of the front line of defense to protect the ensure the safety of our air space. If they lose contact with a plane, they can alert authorities. If an Air Traffic Controller at a major domestic and international airport is asleep at the wheel who will make that call?

It is unfair to put the lives of American passengers at high volume airports at ANY time in the hands of one individual, who may at some point be incapacitated. Even pilots have co-pilots. What if the Controller fell ill? What then? What would you tell those passengers on the plane? Hope for the best? We need to provide the support that Air Traffic Controllers need in addition to the responsibility.

This language I support creates a mandate, that at all times there must be a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation. 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. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, most airports operate 24 hours a day with two controllers in the tower for the midnight-to-6 a.m. shift. The operative word is ``most'', we must act to create a uniform nationwide standard, verifiable and enforceable by the FAA. Again, safety and security are mutually needed to protect the public. This mandate of 2 air traffic controllers on duty at the top 20 airports is vital to America's National Security.

I urge the conferees to adopt this important provision.