Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 533, I call up the conference report on 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 658.

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

Today, I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report for the FAA reauthorization. This is the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012.

First, I want to take a moment to thank Ranking Member Rahall, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, as well as Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and the conferees who worked on this conference report and the underlying bill so that we could reach an agreement on this conference report and this

bipartisan bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman, who is with us this morning, as well as Ranking Member Levin of the Ways and Means Committee, for their assistance, and I want to thank other committees in Congress that have played important parts and have provided assistance to our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to get this bill done.

I must also thank the staff. If I look a little bedraggled this morning, our staff is probably even more bedraggled. Almost all of the members of the T&I Committee stayed through a markup that ended at 2:49 a.m. this morning, and they are here bright and chipper this morning. I appreciate all of the staff. I want to particularly thank Holly Woodruff Lyons, who is our staff director on the FAA subcommittee; Mr. Jim Coon, our staff director of the full committee; Amy Steinmann Smith, who is our policy director; Bailey Edwards; and Suzanne Mullen.

I also have to give a special thanks to our legal counsel, who last night informed me she is resigning today. That was at about 2 a.m. in the morning, but it was with good plans for her, her family and her future. She has served the committee well. We'll miss her. It wasn't as a result of staying up all night and working on this bill, but I'm sure that provided some incentive.

People don't understand how our staff works. On this measure, our staff worked over the holidays--and I'm talking about through Christmas last year and the New Year's holiday. They worked on weekends, and they worked late into the night, not unlike many Americans. They did this for many Americans who want to work, and that's what this legislation is about.

This legislation deals with our entire American aviation industry. It sets all of the policy, all of the formulas. All of the major projects are outlined. This is the blueprint for the United States of America and, actually, for anywhere between 8 and 11 percent of our entire economic activity.

Aviation, we take for granted, but two-thirds of all the people who fly in the world fly in the United States. Aviation has provided a magic carpet where today, these Members are here, Mr. Speaker, and in a few hours or several flights later, they'll be home--across the continent, to the far reaches of the United States and our territories. That's the magic it provides us. It's the engine that drives business and the economy for the United States, and this Congress failed to provide a reauthorization.

I have only been the chair of this committee for a year now. I had the good fortune of being the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation in 2001, and we wrote the last authorization, a 4-year bill, in 2003 that expired in 2007 when the other side of the aisle had control. For 4 years, they had control of the House and the Senate, and for 2 years, they had total control--House, Senate, White House.

They could not pass a bill, a blueprint for the aviation industry. They passed 17 extensions, and the former FAA Administrator said it's causing havoc. These extensions cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, and you can't run an agency that's responsible for so much of our economy with these hiccup extensions.

Now, we've done a total of 23, probably more extensions in the history of any other legislation that's come before this Congress for authorization of an activity within the government. Twenty-three. Seventeen. I had to do six.

I got a little testy, I got tough, but I said, enough is enough. I was tough, and I think I did get people to come to their senses and say that this isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue. This isn't a labor a business issue. This is an issue about putting people to work and defining Federal policy for one of the most important aspects of our economy. So although it's tough, I intend to be tough.

Last night, we stayed till 3 o'clock in the morning. We'll stay as long as it takes to get these measures done that are so important to drive the economic engine of America. With the transportation legislation last night, there were historic reforms, and we took 90 amendments, I believe, from the other side, in a very open process, and everyone had an opportunity to participate and vote on this FAA authorization and in the historic legislation that we passed at 2:49 a.m. this morning. So no one has been denied the opportunity to participate.

It's amazing, when you come together, what you can get done, and the American people want that. They're tired of the bickering and they're tired of the fighting. Yes, we may have some heated discussions--yes, we may have differences of opinion--but we got the job done. So today is an historic day on two counts with two major accomplishments to pass a transportation bill, working, again, with Members, and I appreciate their work.

Today, this historic conference report finally sets a blueprint for aviation industry and an important aspect of our economy. This sets the policy for also taking us into the next generation of air travel. It's called NextGen, next generation air traffic control, so our planes can fly safer in the skies, so we have the ability to save fuel, so that we can get from point to point and know where those aircraft are both in the air and on the ground. This legislation sets that blueprint.

So I am very pleased to be here. I am pleased for the American people because the Congress has done its work. They don't want excuses. They want results. And today is a day of results for one of the longest-term extended authorizations in the history of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to document for the Record a clerical error in the message to the Senate regarding the House appointment of conferees on H.R. 658. On January 31, 2012, the Speaker appointed members of the Ways and Means committee to serve as conferees on, among other provisions, title VIII of the Senate amendment. The Journal, the House Calendar and the signature sheets on the conference report accurately depict this appointment. However, the message to the Senate provided that the appointment was for title VII of the Senate amendment. I want to assure Members that the House conferees acted in accordance with the Speaker's appointment.

With those few remarks--and I will have additional--I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee.

I yield myself 15 seconds to say how much Pat Mica and I have enjoyed our relationship with Jerry Costello and his wife, Georgia. People don't know a lot about Congress and how many friends there are across the aisle and how we can be privileged to have somebody like Jerry Costello, both to chair an aviation subcommittee and to be a ranking member, a key player.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, one of the conferees, and a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me just say that we did not change the provision of the law, that it still requires the same provisions that the NMB put in place that changed 70 years of labor law. Of anyone who shows up--if there are 1,000 people in the union and 200 show up--101 can have a vote and go into the union. We did change a requirement, and actually, I didn't negotiate it specifically.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

That was negotiated by our Mr. Boehner, our Speaker, and the leadership controlled by the Democrats in the Senate. In fact, it is fair to labor because it does requires a certain number of people to sign up to have the election.

I think it's a good compromise. The House voted to do away with the provision that the gentleman spoke about. Republicans are concerned and want to help labor. In fact, the vice-chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Cravaack, is a card-carrying member of the union. So that's bogus.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the young, dynamic leader and chair of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a senior member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher.

I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the cooperative tone of the other side of the aisle, which had the opportunity, when it controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, to pass a bill and failed to do so. But I'm really encouraged today by their willingness to come together in a bipartisan effort on behalf of the American people and to get one of the most important job creation infrastructure bills and pieces of legislation done, which is our responsibility.

I yield 1 minute to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

I would be pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to one of the most distinguished chairs of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, a good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

First, I'd like to insert in the Record a list of the staff who worked on H.R. 658.

Mr. Speaker, as I close today on this historic legislation, again, I can't thank enough folks like Mr. Costello, who will be leaving us; Mr. Rahall, our ranking member; the leader of the committee, Mr. Petri; and others who have been here helping and working on this.

I think Mr. Costello and Mr. Young summed it up: this is the work of many people. It is not exactly what any one of us individually would offer. The important thing is this provides some certainty in an uncertain time. This process is very difficult; the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. But the American people want us to get the job done.

Now, just to be factual, the other side, again, had 4 years in which they controlled this body, the United States Senate, and 2 years in which they had significant majorities and the Presidency; and they could not get it done. They did 17 extensions. Let me praise Mr. DeFazio; I didn't see him here. He and I helped lead the effort to pass, in 2003, a 4-year bill that expired in 2007. That means for the past 5 years we have not had a revised and updated policy for our aviation system and for the FAA. And that hurts the system, it hurts the American people, it hurts looking for safety improvements in the process, and it hurts people looking for expanded opportunities to be employed.

Today, we heard some good news on employment, and the good news is that some of the policies that went amok, the spending that went amok, the new regulations that went amok, this small band of people who were sent here have called a lot of that to a halt. It wasn't productive.

This bill does not have tax increases in it. This bill does not have earmarks in it. This bill does not have any special plums or favors for anyone.

And contrary to what's been said here today, this bill does not adversely affect labor. It's a fairness issue. The House passed a measure that would have codified and changed what the NMB changed in 70 years of labor law, allowing whoever showed up to vote into a union. It set out a fair process, and it was done with a compromise. And if you want to know what the delay was in the first 4 years, let's be frank: it was a labor issue that the Democrats couldn't resolve among themselves, and they controlled the whole process.

So I am here 1 year later as chair. I took some tough measures, and I will take tough measures to see that we get our job done. We stayed until 2:49 this morning to get the next piece of legislation marked up. We have done and passed, and the President has signed, an improvement to our pipeline safety which is so important for energy, expanding energy sources, but also making certain that that energy is coming to us in a safe and responsible manner.

Today, we will pass in the House the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, accounting for up to 11 percent, I'm told, of our gross domestic product, our economic activity for the country, $1.3 trillion in business activity, thousands of jobs. And let me tell you too, we can't let labor--you can't let business--go astray. It's our responsibility to set a steady course.

Look, this is a very fragile industry. We just heard an announcement that American Airlines is going to cut more than 10,000, I think 13,000, jobs in bankruptcy. Boeing, we almost lost jobs in South Carolina. We can't play those games, labor and business. We've got to come together and get people working. The aviation industry--not only the passengers, for whom flying is so important--but aviation products, they are the core to our exports. So we can and we must get this done working together.

Staff Who Worked on H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization Bill: February 3,

2012

Submitted by: Congressman John L. Mica

House Majority Staff:

Holly Woodruff Lyons

Bailey Edwards

Simone Perez

Andrew Rademaker

Jim Coon

Amy Smith

Suzanne Mullen

Sharon Barkeloo

Tracy Mosebey

Debbie Gebhardt

House Minority Staff:

Giles Giovinazzi

Alex Burkett

Julia Rowe

Jim Zoia

Ward McCarragher

Sarah Blackwood

Senate Majority Staff:

Gael Sullivan

Rich Swayze

Adam Duffy

Ellen Doneski

James Reed

John Williams

Senate Minority Staff:

Jarrod Thompson

Todd Bertoson

I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for her courtesies of extending time on a bill that we have been waiting for for a very long time. I was speaking, as I was coming to the floor, and thinking about whether or not we could work together in a bipartisan manner.

I represent a number of airports generally, and specifically I represent Bush Intercontinental Airport, which has a reputation for being one of the top airports around the Nation. A couple of months ago, we stood together with our airport director and workers in the community, asking for an FAA authorization bill.

We are in need of repairs, and we are in need of growth. And how exciting it is to know that this has been one of the best job-growth months in our time, 243,000 jobs. We're on the right track, Ms. Slaughter, and this bill would have certainly been on the right track.

But why in the world do we put in this bill a poison pill that some say is a settlement, a resolve, that takes a configuration of counting that is absurd? For those who want to come together as the First Amendment allows you to do, the right to assemble in unions and employee organizations--which to date has not harmed our airport industry--for those who want to come together, an absurd configuration of retirees and people who are not there are counted when you have an election to become a union.

Just yesterday, the Governor of Indianapolis, Indiana, signed a right-to-work. We have right-to-work States. We have recognized their existence. Whether we like them or not, they exist. Why can't unions have the right in a fair way to organize?

I thank the gentlelady for her kindness.

If any Member, any Governor had to go to the polls and work to bring people to the polls to vote in an election in a democratic process and in that election they had to count the people who were home, asleep in their beds, some who did not desire to vote--that was their democratic choice, although we want everyone to vote--most people would say that is absurd, including my friends on the other side of the aisle. Why did this have to be the scourge in this particular legislation?

Let me also say that, as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and as formerly the chairperson, I believe in working together. We had a pilot program dealing with privatization in some small airports of the Transportation Security Administration. But the gentlelady is from New York. And if I recall, we were privatized on that fateful date of 9/11. The idea is to make our TSOs at a level that is responsible across the Nation. And we had language in this bill that said that we may look at other requests or make decisions on other requests for using privatization. No, they go and change the language.

Now, ``the Secretary shall.'' She has to. And there is no credible evidence that suggests that the privatization of TSOs or the Transportation Security Administration is going to make our Nation safer. Why do we mix infrastructure work--getting our airports safer and credible and ready to expand--with these kinds of poison pills in the box, in-your-eye initiatives?

So, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to say that I am shouting for the fact that we have finally come together in what could be a way forward; but, unfortunately, we have decided to use the poison pen strategy, divide but not conquer. We're going to fix this as we go forward.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule.

I, too, want to rise today to acknowledge both the chairman and the ranking member. I know that this has not been an easy task. And I certainly want to express my appreciation to Mr. Costello for the work that he has done and the friendship he has shown to Members, but also the understanding that he has had for this industry.

For those of us who represent airports, I cannot deny that this is an important bill and legislative initiative. So let me thank you and thank you, as well, for the late hours that all of you who are on the Transportation Committee engaged in.

Might I, for a moment, before I speak of this bill, thank the ranking member and Congresswoman Brown and Congressman Johnson for saving Houston, again, in its light rail. This is something I've worked for for almost 20 years, and the amendment last evening that would have defunded Houston's rail, light rail, was absurd and, frankly, an outrage. I hope, as we proceed, we'll find a way to recognize that Members' projects for their constituents for regional mobility should not be tampered with by those living miles away from their community. So I am just thankful for the recognition of the importance of rail and job creation.

As I indicated, I do rise in support of the infrastructure aspects of this bill. We cannot deny that I am grateful for the airport trust fund language dealing with how do you do the airport fees for the NextGen technology; but I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation Subcommittee, and there is language in there about TSO officers. Remember, we were privatized on 9/11.

Despite having never been debated by the Committee on Homeland Security--the committee of jurisdiction--and having no Members being appointed conferees on behalf of the FAA conference committee, section 830 of the conference report for the FAA reauthorization has been tampered with.

It limits TSA's flexibility to approve or deny an application from an airport to opt out of using the Federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening. Let me remind you, the airports had privatized security on the day of 9/11. That's why we went to the transportation security officers.

It places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capability.

It increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied.

It provides a waiver for the existing law that requires private screening, and it says that we shall do it.

I thank the gentleman.

It provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted will be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States, meaning that it waives the fact that you have to be a United States citizen to provide security for those who are traveling.

And it requires--it says you ``must'' privatize some of these airports. Did we learn from 9/11?

So besides the poison pill on labor, counting people who don't even show up to vote, now we have a situation where we are forcing our Nation's airports to privatize their security.

I ask my colleagues to reflect on this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 658, ``the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.'' This bill would authorize appropriations, mainly over the 2011-2014 period, for activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, and other federal programs related to aviation.

In addition, the measure contains intergovernmental and private- sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, because it would impose new requirements on both public and private entities that own aircraft or airports. CB0 estimates that the aggregate cost of intergovernmental mandates in the bill would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($71 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).

It would impose additional private-sector mandates on operators of certain aircraft, entities registering or obtaining certification with the FAA, commercial air carriers, employees in air or rail industries, and unions.

As a Senior Member on the House Homeland Security Committee I have been one of the foremost proponents for the swift passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act. But in its current form I cannot vote for this measure. Our national air transportation system is fundamental for the future growth of our economy. However, Congress must ensure our safety and our national security is not at risk without a comprehensive, long- term reauthorization of the FAA Act and not with Homeland Security issues being decided. There are two provisions that have been placed in this bill which are poison pills and must be addressed prior to its passage.

Despite having never been debated by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee of jurisdiction, and no Members being appointed conferees on behalf of the Committee, section 830 of the Conference Report for the FAA Reauthorization deals with the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, which falls under the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security committee which I sit on.

Under this Conference Report TSA will be limited in approving or denying an application from an airport to `opt-out' of using the federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening. It also places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capabilities.

It also increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied. And lastly it provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted with be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

As concerned as I am about the aviation security policy changes made in the bill, I am equally concerned about the process that got us to this point. The Committee on Homeland Security has sole jurisdiction over TSA. It has debated several aviation security bills during the 112th Congress, including a TSA Authorization bill.

The language in the Conference Report to the FAA Reauthorization was never debated by the Committee and no hearings were held by the Committee to examine the merits of the changes. Indeed, the Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security is scheduled to have a hearing on the program addressed in this legislation next week with

the Administrator of TSA set to testify. Unfortunately, it appears that hearing will come up ``a day late and a dollar short.''

Section 830 of the Conference Report for the FAA Reauthorization:

Limits TSA's flexibility to approve or deny an application from an airport to ``opt-out'' of using the federal screening workforce for passenger and baggage screening;

Places an arbitrary time limitation of 120 days on TSA to determine whether approval of an airport's application would compromise security, affect cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening capabilities;

Increases administrative burdens on TSA by requiring a tedious paperwork exercise each time an application is denied; and

Provides a waiver for the existing law that requires a private screening company contracted with be owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

As concerned as I am about the aviation security policy changes made in the bill, I am equally concerned about the process that got us to this point. The Committee on Homeland Security has sole jurisdiction over TSA. It has debated several aviation security bills during the 112th Congress including a TSA Authorization bill.

The language in the Conference Report to the FAA Reauthorization was never debated by the Committee and no hearings were held by the Committee to examine the merits of the changes. Indeed, the Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security is scheduled to have a hearing on the program addressed in this legislation next week with the Administrator of TSA set to testify. Unfortunately, it appears that hearing will come up a day late and a dollar short.

The National Mediation Board, NMB, has ruled that in order to organize, aviation workers need to have a majority of the voting workers for that particular election. My Republican colleagues however overturned the NMB determination by requiring a majority of all workers, rather than a majority of all voting workers. This has significantly watered down the ruling by the NMB. I cannot stand by and witness the rights of workers being stripped away one piece at a time. If this is the standard that is going to be set for workers who wish to form a Union, then Members of Congress in our fine Democracy should also have the same standards. Rather than a majority of voting citizens, it should be a majority of citizens. If this is not a requirement upon which our democracy is based. It should not be the requirement for Unions.

I believe that aviation contributes over 1.2 trillion in economic activity and provides 11 million jobs annually. Indeed, the partial FAA shut down had a negative impact on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, furloughed employees, and stop work order measures that have halted construction on key infrastructure projects, such as the $25 million construction of Replacement TRACON in Houston. However, something must be done to address the privatization of airports--the impact on TSOs as well as the ability of workers to have a fair and democratic vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 533 provides for a standard rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, the United States aviation industry currently accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and contributes $1.3 trillion to the Nation's gross domestic product.

Regrettably, since September 30, 2007, the FAA has operated under a series of short-term, stopgap extensions. In fact, there have been 23 extensions of the FAA programs since the last multiyear reauthorization was signed into law 8 years ago. I'm relieved that we have finally stopped playing politics with the safety of our airline passengers and appear to be on the verge of passing a necessary, meaningful, and long- term FAA reauthorization.

The FAA conference report provides responsible funding for FAA safety programs, air traffic control modernization efforts, known as NextGen, and operations through 2015. It holds spending at fiscal year 2011 levels while providing $13.4 billion in projects that will create much needed construction jobs. The conference report contains no earmarks, and it does not raise taxes or passenger facility charges during this difficult economic time.

With the passage of the reauthorization, the deployment of NextGen technologies to replace our current, outdated, ground-based air traffic control system will begin. NextGen will bring an estimated net $281 billion benefit to the overall U.S. economy through decreased flight delays, decreased fuel use, and job opportunities for new, high-tech companies.

The House-Senate agreement will also improve aviation safety for passengers, reform antiquated programs that have become overly reliant on government subsidies, and establish a process to address outdated and obsolete air traffic control facilities, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

Because we are finally passing a 4-year authorization, the conference report will provide long-term certainty for the aviation industry and all who rely upon it. This certainty will produce an environment which allows for the creation of high-paying and sustainable jobs. Instead of wondering whether or not the next extension will squeeze by just before the expiration, employees and job creators can budget,

plan, and grow with confidence that government will not pull the rug out from under them.

While I'm excited that we have finally embraced the benefits of certainty and stability when it comes to our aviation system, I can't help but state what many Americans probably feel is obvious: This is how the system is supposed to work.

Far too often, Congress jumps from crisis to crisis, many of which appear to this freshman Member to be self-created. Far too often, because of the unwillingness of some to cooperate, we have been forced to wait until we're up against some kind of deadline that if we don't act, something else looms on the other side. This is no way to legislate, and it's no way to govern. It certainly isn't the legislative process I learned in my 7th grade civics class. Instead, we should be striving to do our work as the Founding Fathers envisioned. They understood and anticipated that the House of Representatives and the Senate would not always walk in lockstep agreement on every issue.

On the second day of the first Congress, on April 7, 1789, there was a conference committee appointed by the House and Senate, and they worked out their differences. Since that time, the House and Senate have formulated positions, each of which may be somewhat different, and yet conferees would be appointed to manage that Chamber's position and to hash out differences and produce an agreement that both Chambers could agree on.

In my first year in Washington, however, it seemed that is the exception much more than the rule. Much more often, one side takes a position, and then on the other side they refuse to do the same, and there's a lack of any kind of compromise or cooperation. I'm not interested in assigning any blame on whom or why that has taken place or why the process is the way it is. I do believe, though, that cooperation takes a willing partner, and we can be that willing partner.

Today is a good day, but we have so much more work to do. Even though the process is not a headline-getting opportunity, the process is important. To me, the more we can push down the pyramid of power and spread out the base and let every Member be a player, we'll have a process that both the House and the Senate can work on and work with each other on and cooperate and the better the policy will be. If the process is broken, sure enough, the product is broken. If the process is good, as this process has been, then I guarantee you, the unintended consequences that usually appear in bills that are pushed through in the dark of night are done away with. And we have an opportunity to do that today. So no one got everything they wanted, and yet this is a picture of how it ought to be.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both of those measures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the House know and the Speaker know that this conference report was signed by all the Republicans and Democrats. There are a few people against this, but not many. It's a bipartisan effort. All the Democrats in the Senate signed the conference report. So I believe this is a great bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I would like to inform my colleague I am ready to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we're finally getting ready to provide certainty and stability to our aviation industry and to those who depend on it for their livelihoods and safe travel.

The agreement reached between the House and Senate conferees is far from perfect, and I doubt everyone got everything they wanted. But it promises to improve air travel for passengers, comfort and safety, while ensuring a more modern air traffic control system. It keeps spending flat, and it's free of earmarks, tax increases, or any increase in passenger facility charges. It provides funding for airport infrastructure projects that will spur much needed construction jobs for an industry that has been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.

This conference report represents a step in the right direction. While long overdue, in this instance, the legislative process has finally worked, and Congress stands ready to work the people's will.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the rule and its passage along with the underlying bill and its passage.

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 thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. Let me thank him not only for his friendship and his kind words but for his leadership on the committee on so many issues.

As the chairman pointed out, we were in a markup until almost 3 a.m. this morning, and Mr. Rahall led us on our side of the aisle in working together to try and come up with a better product than was presented to us last night. So I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to say from the outset that I'm deeply disappointed in the change to the Railway Labor Act that was added to the conference report during final negotiations on the National Mediation Board provision between Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid. The NMB language had been dropped altogether, as Mr. Rahall indicated in his statement. Congress should not be amending the Railway Labor Act in this bill. Importantly, there are several provisions in the conference report that help organized labor, and after working on this legislation for over 5 years, I believe it's necessary to move forward and enact a multiyear reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

However, I want to be clear: I join the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, and many others, that if the Railway Labor Act change proves to have a significant impact--negative impact--on the right to organize, we must come back and revisit this issue.

One of my highest priorities in the FAA reauthorization bill has been and is fair bargaining rights for employees at the FAA. After leading the fight for many years, I am pleased that the conference report establishes a process for mediation and binding arbitration of impasses between the FAA and its unions.

As Chairman Petri indicated, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides $63 billion dollars for FAA infrastructure programs, operations, and research over the 4-year period of the bill. I wanted to see higher funding levels and a passenger facility charge increase for job-creating airport infrastructure projects. However, the funding levels in this conference report are an improvement over the 2008 levels originally proposed in the House-passed bill. They are roughly level with the current year's appropriation.

The conference report also includes a number of safety provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill that we had in previous Congresses, such as a stronger requirement for maintenance work performed on U.S. commercial airlines by outside contractors. It also requires the FAA to assess the appropriate staff levels for air traffic controllers, FAA managers, and aviation safety inspectors.

In addition, the conference report takes important steps to advance the next generation air traffic control system that is desperately needed not only by the industry and for the flying public but by the country as a whole. We create a new chief NextGen officer who will serve as the primary point of contact for NextGen implementation at the FAA to provide accountability and stability, and require reporting metrics to ensure that NextGen is making progress.

Further, it would require the FAA to work closely with affected unions in the planning, development, and deployment of NextGen. I wrote this provision in the bill 4 years ago, and I'm glad to see that it will be enacted into law in this conference report.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, despite the flaws that we talked about in the bill, we desperately need a long-term FAA reauthorization bill, and that's why I'm supporting this bill.

I thank the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, Chairman Mica, Chairman Petri, and other committee members for all of their hard work on this legislation, and I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, who have worked very hard over the past 5 years to try and bring us to the point where we are today to get a bill on the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Rahall. We've worked very closely together on this legislation. And over the next 9 or 10 months of my service to complete my term, we're going to continue to work together.

I want to thank Chairman Mica. We do not always agree on every issue, but we work together in an open process. He has extended many courtesies to me, and I appreciate his friendship and his leadership. No one wanted to bring this bill to the floor more than he, and a number of us as well. But he has done his very best. He said when he took over as chairman that he was going to bring an FAA bill and a highway bill to the floor, and I think he has every intention to do that. And we're halfway there as of today.

And let me say, Mr. Petri, who, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee for 4 years, I could not have had a better ranking member. Now as ranking member, I could not have a better chair as far as a working relationship, and we've done things in a bipartisan manner. So I thank the chairman, and I thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member.

Let me conclude by saying that this is not a perfect bill. I have major concerns with the NMB. It should not be in this bill. And if in fact there are problems as a result of the provisions put in this bill, it is my intent, and the intent of many on our side, to come back and try and address that in an appropriate way.

There are many provisions in this bill that will enhance safety; and there are a number of provisions in this bill that will protect workers and workers' rights over at the FAA and the unions that represent employees at the Federal Aviation Administration.

So I will be supporting the conference report.

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

I had hoped for legislation today that would be laser-focused on creating jobs, on creating jobs and making our aviation system safer, more efficient and more accessible for our flying public. Instead, much of the drama over the FAA reauthorization, for the last year--and there's been plenty of that drama--erupted over a provision of the House-passed bill that would have changed how the National Mediation Board, the NMB, counts votes in representation elections at airlines and railroads.

Now, let me be clear. As I stated in our perfunctory one single, only conference meeting on this issue, that provision had no place and these labor provisions before the National Mediation Board have no place in FAA reauthorization because it has nothing to do with improving safety or creating jobs. Instead, it was a salvo aimed by the majority in this House at our American workers.

Today, we have a conference report with a so-called compromise, but that compromise still changes how airline and railroad workers join unions. Now, some will say that this compromise is several degrees better than the original provision in the House bill. Nevertheless, I strongly oppose the inclusion of this NMB provision in the pending legislation.

On the other hand, I am pleased that the conference committee flat- out rejected the proposal of the original House-passed bill to sunset the Essential Air Service program. I was beginning to suspect that my Republican colleagues were confusing the EAS title of this bill with the ESA, which, in my mind, refers to the Endangered Species Act. The gentleman in the chair will know to which I refer.

But this conference report will not make EAS an endangered species, fortunately, and the program will be continued with modest reforms to ensure that it remains a worthy investment. For communities in my home State of West Virginia, these airports are a vital lifeline and engine of economic growth that will be preserved, and this is what I reference when I refer to creating jobs.

This legislation will improve safety, and it will improve efficiency. It will create some jobs, though not enough, in my view. While it does not slash FAA funding to 2008 levels, it could have authorized more investment in our Nation's aviation infrastructure.

On the journey to a 100 percent sustainable, efficient, accessible, and safe aviation system, this bill is just a way-point. Much more work is still ahead, but at least this legislation will set a course for the Federal Aviation Administration to follow in investing for the future and in keeping the skies safe in the coming years.

I do not want to see the FAA countinue to limp along in the no-man's land of serial extensions, to which the chairman has already referred-- 23 or 24 to this date--and I certainly do not want to see another shutdown of this agency, as we saw last August, with innocent individuals being laid off work.

But I will watch closely how the NMB provision affects workers' bargaining rights, and will be ready to act to correct any unfair imbalance if that becomes necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this point I am very honored, in a nostalgic way, to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the former chairman of our subcommittee on aviation, the current ranking member, who is taking his expertise--and hopefully not his friendship--and going elsewhere after this year. He has been a very valued member of our committee, and his treasure chest of knowledge on this issue is boundless. I am just so happy and thankful that we've had Jerry Costello to represent us on this issue for so many years.

I recognize him for as much time as he wants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the conference committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is not only a member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but also our ranking Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), our ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. He is a true friend and leader of the interests of all working men and women in this country, especially our coal miners.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown, who is our ranking member on the Railroads Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, ranking member on our House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Once again, I cannot say how much we're going to miss his knowledge and his expertise on this and many other issues on our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I yield him the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.