Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and salute his leadership on this committee and our long, long, long friendship as southern California Representatives.

I rise in support of this legislation and again thank the committee leadership and committee members for including language in the original House bill and the original committee's report reflecting many of the concerns I have about nuclear proliferation in Pakistan. Regrettably, some of that language is not in this compromise, though I applaud section 203's limitations.

Mr. Speaker, Pakistan poses one of the most complex foreign policy challenges facing the United States today.

It sits at the intersection of vital security interests, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to the war in Afghanistan.

A secure and stable Pakistan is of critical importance to the United States, and yet, with a large al Qaeda presence, a vibrant Taliban insurgency, and widespread political unrest, that stability is anything but guaranteed.

Recent news reports suggest that the city of Quetta is becoming the new stronghold for the Taliban. Our extremely capable Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, says that ``our intelligence on Quetta is vastly less, we have no people there, no cross-border operations, no predators.''

The stakes are truly high. Pakistan's nuclear stockpile cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands.

In March, I worked with Chairman Berman to incorporate language that would guarantee U.S. investigators access to individuals suspected of proliferation activities. While that language is not in this bill, this bill does limit security-related assistance contingent upon Pakistan's help dismantling proliferation networks and combating terrorist groups.

A few weeks ago, a Pakistani court lifted the requirement that A.Q. Khan, the mastermind of the most notorious nuclear smuggling ring ever, remain under police escort when traveling around the country. Just recently, Khan boasted to the press that the Government of Pakistan was complicit in his past activity.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the aid authorized by this bill will persuade President Zardari and his government to do more to crack down on proliferation offenders and become better partners with the world community in stabilizing their country.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very large, 5-year down payment on long- term success in Pakistan. We need to be clear-eyed about the opportunities and to embrace them, but also clear-eyed about the risks.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will help America's first responders keep their communities safer by solving a dangerous deficiency in their emergency communications capabilities. Our first responders are also our first preventers, and their ability to communicate seamlessly and effectively on an interoperable network during an emergency helps save lives and protect critical infrastructure.

For over 7 years, I have worked to prevent a tragic repetition of the communications problems that resulted in thousands of deaths on 9/11-- when the lack of an interoperable network prevented the NYPD from warning firefighters that the Twin Towers were glowing red and it was time to evacuate.

My home State of California is prone to natural disasters, especially earthquakes and wild fires. Alarmingly, there are still instances when our firefighters have relied on runners and drivers to relay messages during an emergency. This occurs when multiple companies respond to the same incident, each carrying different equipment.

An important piece of the solution to this crisis is the Public Safety Interoperable Communications, PSIC, grant program, which provides funding to purchase interoperable communications equipment and undertake training to use it.

Since 2007, the PSIC program has provided nearly $1 billion in grants to state and local governments, and the deadline to spend the funds is next year. All states were required to develop Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans, SCIP. Unfortunately, according to the Department of Homeland Security, its approval of these plans was delayed until the spring of 2008, in part because DHS wanted to ensure they were subject to appropriate environmental reviews. This is understandable; however, the delay in approving SCIP plans means that not all of the grant funds can be spent before next year's deadline.

The PSIC program is vital to public safety; it should be allowed the necessary time and funding. The legislation I introduce today--which is a companion bill to S.1694 introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Hutchinson--would guarantee a one-year extension to spend the grant money, with an option for an additional year approved on a case-by-case basis.

While I urge prompt action on this bill, this will in no way relieve us of the obligation to complete the build-out of the 700 megahertz spectrum so that we develop true national interoperability. I am enormously disappointed that, despite universal agreement on the goal, real progress has been so slow.

In conclusion, the PSIC program must be continued. It is a building block in the effort to equip our communities to respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I urge prompt consideration and passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying PAYGO bill. For those who worry about hemorrhaging deficits and debt, this bill is for you. I was here in the early 1990s, in another century, and remember well casting a career-risking vote in 1993--it was a totally partisan vote--for the Clinton budget that I believe history will show put the country on a glide path to a balanced budget and created surpluses for the first time in a generation. Sadly, it was also the last time in a generation that we saw those surpluses.

Today is a proud moment for the Blue Dog Coalition in our dogged pursuit of bipartisan budget solutions. As a self-proclaimed ``grandmother dog,'' I salute my colleagues in the group, and especially our former leader and colleague, Charlie Stenholm, for championing PAYGO. I know that many of us in this Chamber yearn for more bipartisanship. I would urge our colleagues to seize this moment to embrace a concept that makes absolute common sense, a concept that the government pays for the programs it enacts, including the defense programs that it enacts. One of the great promises of this legislation is that we will finally put predictable war costs on budget, as we should, and consider them in the context of a large budget at a time of deficits and debt that are much higher than any of us would like to see.

So, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we have the opportunity to hit the reset button and to engage in more honest budgeting. Yes, some compromises had to be made, and I would support a tighter version of PAYGO than the one we are considering. But I also believe that the bill before us today makes an unequivocal statement by Congress that the delusional out-of-control spending of the past years is finally behind us. Surely, this is something that Democrats and Republicans alike can celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, millions of American families are swallowing hard, surely those families in my State of California are, and making tough financial choices right now. The Federal Government must do the same. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the PAYGO Act of 2009 and call on our friends in the Senate not to allow this much-needed legislation to languish.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of our former colleague Pete Geren as he steps down as Secretary of the Army.

Secretary Geren, a quiet and thoughtful leader, fulfilled the duties of his office with superb competence and compassion. Of his many achievements, his initiative to combat military sexual trauma deserves particular recognition. Secretary Geren called the epidemic of rape and sexual assault within the ranks of the Army ``fratricide.'' He viewed its elimination as of equal consequence to the challenge of racially integrating the armed forces.

Last year, Secretary Geren launched the I. A.M. Strong campaign, a five-year program designed to eradicate rape and sexual assault in the Army. Secretary Geren was unwavering in his efforts to tackle this important issue. As he explained, ``we're the United States Army and we live our values.''

Prior to joining the Defense Department, Secretary Geren represented Texas' 12th District for four terms. During that time, we worked together on the Armed Services committee, where he served with distinction. He also served on the Science & Technology and the Public Works & Transportation Committees.

Secretary Geren's strength of character and visionary leadership has resulted in a better Army and a safer nation. I thank him for his extraordinary service to country, and look forward to applauding whatever new and exciting chapter he now begins.

Madam Speaker, today, together with my colleagues Representatives Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, I rise to introduce H.R. 3199, that takes an important step toward ensuring the safety and security of our communities by enhancing the surge capacities of local medical facilities, while helping ease veterans' transition into civilian life.

Every year, highly trained, experienced medics leave the ranks of the nation's armed forces. Yet those who wish to find employment in the medical field must start from scratch, fulfilling the same entry-level criteria as citizens without any hands-on experience.

At the same time, hospitals and emergency medical services face a shortage of qualified personnel. Many operate at or near capacity, barely meeting the daily demand for their services. In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other mass-casualty incident the resulting surge of patients would overwhelm medical facilities. Having the largest possible pool of experienced emergency medical personnel on hand is crucial in responding to such an incident.

Veterans with medical experience are the ideal people to fill this gap. Who better to come to the rescue in face of a disaster than the same men and women we've trusted to defend this country overseas? In the world of emergency response there is no substitute for experience. First responders routinely face life-or-death decisions, often amid a backdrop of chaos and confusion. This would be magnified during a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Military medics work at the scenes of IED attacks, suicide bombings, and firefights; many have experience equivalent to that of their most seasoned civilian counterparts in this respect.

By treating veteran medics as entry-level trainees, we forego an opportunity to benefit from their existing training and highly relevant experience. Rather than subjecting them to the same coursework as everyone else, states should allow military medics to undertake a regimen that accounts for their existing training and prepares them to provide care in a non-combat environment. Not only will this enhance the surge capacity of medical facilities, it will also spare the cost of unnecessary, redundant training.

The legislation we introduce today will create such a fast-track, removing the barriers that currently impede veterans' assimilation into the corps of emergency responders.

Not only is this an important step to bolstering the nation's preparedness, it also helps veterans transition from military to civilian life. In 2008, the average unemployment rate of recently discharged military personnel was more than 30 percent higher than the rate for non-veterans. Creating an avenue to employment for veterans with medical experience is the least we can do to honor the brave men and women who have risked their lives in defense of their country.

We owe it to veterans to help them find work and we owe our communities the protection they deserve. This is a win-win solution that allows us to do both.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 425, I was attending a classified briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill and commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for moving another unanimous bipartisan authorization bill out of their committee. As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee, I admire the bipartisan way in which the committee operates. My aerospace-centric congressional district is grateful too. Thanks too to Personnel Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis and her staff for working with me on an issue of paramount importance, the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military.

Mr. Speaker, the math is shocking. Women who serve in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

Only 317 out of the 2,763 subjects investigated during fiscal year 2008 were referred to courts martial. That's 11 percent, a figure far below civilian prosecution rates where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are prosecuted.

DOD must close the gaps in prosecution and remove obstacles to legal enforcement. Effective investigation and prosecution are the keys to turning this epidemic around, by drawing bright red lines around unacceptable conduct.

This bill includes language from a resolution I authored with our colleague Mike Turner, who has been a champion on this issue; and I thank him for his hard work. Our provision calls for review of DOD's capacity and infrastructure to investigate and prosecute sexual assault and rape cases and to identify any deficiencies. The legislation also requires that DOD develop a sexual assault prevention plan for Congress' review. This would include action plans for reducing the number of sexual assaults and timelines for implementation of the program. DOD

would be required to develop a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of its prevention program.

While this bill is commendable and includes good steps towards eliminating rapists in the ranks, I believe we can do even more. We must build on these efforts and insist on real accountability from the chain of command. And a major step toward eradicating rape in the military is making sure that blue-on-blue attacks are punished.

Mr. Speaker, this is a force protection issue and a moral issue. Congress and DOD must do better. And when our colleague John McHugh becomes Army Secretary, I urge him to pursue the issue and support the Army's impressive ``I am strong'' campaign initiated by his predecessor, our former colleague, Pete Geren. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, we live in difficult times. Families continue to struggle to make ends meet. Two major American auto companies have crumbled before our eyes. And the US faces threats from groups and individuals across the globe who endeavor to do us harm.

Today, the bill before us--hopefully the last war supplemental funding measure of its kind--attempts to tackle at least one of these looming problems.

It finances the targeted strategy President Obama has crafted to minimize security threats to the United States and stabilize one of the most volatile regions of the world. The Supplemental's provisions on Afghanistan and Pakistan focus on preventing them from becoming failed states and safe havens for terrorists.

It is also a needed course-correction from the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan--one that makes ending corruption and improving governance, not projection of military force, the top priority.

The President has asked me--personally--to support this measure.

And I will support it for three reasons. First, this bill funds a very clear strategy in Afghanistan and limits the military mission there. Second, it provides the means to end the combat mission in Iraq and requires the Secretary of Defense to report on troop drawdown status there.

Third, there is no funding for US troops to Pakistan--only non- military aid and counter-insurgency training to enable Pakistani forces to defeat the ominous Taliban threat inside their borders. It rightly focuses on programs that can and should succeed, rather than open-ended engagements that lack achievable goals.

Governance is the key--providing the Afghan and Pakistani people an alternative to the false promise of safety and security offered by insurgent groups who are in fact terrorizing local populations. Earning the trust of the people of those countries is crucial--reforming the police, cleaning up the court systems and targeting corruption are necessary to restore confidence.

One of the most important provisions contained in this bill is the requirement that the President submit a report to Congress within

the next year assessing the success of the Af/Pak policy--the extent to which the Afghan and Pakistan governments have supported counterinfurgency operations and governance reforms, and the ways in which they effectively governing the shared border region.

The oversight measures contained in this bill will ensure that the mission is focused and that our goals are met. Investments are specific and intended to funs a finite objective.

But this measure funds more than our engagements abroad. It provides $7.7 billion for H1N1 pandemic flu preparedness and response efforts-- most of which will be used to expand our ability to detect the virus and supplement vaccine stockpiles. While this pandemic has not been as extreme as initially expected, many scientists fear that H1N1 could recur--in a stronger form--next year. This is a strategic investment in the federal government's contingency planning efforts.

Finally, the legislation honors America's wounded warriors, providing funds for health and rehabilitation programs.

I have long opposed conducting US military operations ``off the books.'' President Obama is committed to ending this practice, which I believe is necessary to making sure our missions are effective and Americans can understand the real trade-offs involved.

Statement on Conference Report of HR 2346, FY 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations 15 June 2009

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this rule and of the bill, as amended, by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, as they say in the intelligence world, ``this is a slam dunk.'' I have experienced the tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users and their families. Both of my parents were chain smokers. My father, a physician, quit when I was young, but our house reeked of secondhand smoke, and my mother continued to smoke until she could no longer hold a cigarette. After long illnesses, both parents died from lung cancer. It was a nightmare and one I would spare other families. As a grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke.

Approximately 4,000 children try a cigarette for the first time each day. By the end of this week, thousands of Americans will have died from tobacco-related diseases, and thousands more will become new, regular users. We can take a big step forward in breaking this deadly cycle by giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. That's all this bill does, and it is long overdue.

The legislation we are voting on today is the product of a decades'- long crusade by our colleague Henry Waxman, by Senator Edward Kennedy, by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and by scores of public health groups. It is a big downpayment on health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually treating tobacco-related diseases. This critical funding could be put towards our failing health care infrastructure and towards making health care more affordable for everyone. With its passage today, I hope this bill will become law promptly, and I hope that the CBO will find the way to score the savings that come from this and from other preventative health measures.

If we can do this, we can find a way to cut the cost of health care reform, of national health care reform, which is urgently needed this year. So, as I see it, this is a downpayment on health care reform, and it's a downpayment on the health of our children and of our grandchildren. This bill will save lives and scarce resources. This bill is a slam dunk. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and on the underlying legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate what you've said, and I do appreciate long years of collaboration on very important issues, especially affecting the military, like sexual harassment and this wave of sexual assault and rape against women. I appreciate that very much.

On this issue, sure, let's work together on a harm reduction strategy. I think this bill, which I'm for and you're obviously against, goes only partway. There is a lot more to do, and a lot of people have terrible stories like mine, and I embrace the fact that you're against smoking. I surely hope that becomes a much more prevalent practice by our young kids. That's what my purpose here is. I never want anyone else to have the kind of tragedy that I had with parents who were addicted like mine.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Honda Motor Company--whose North American headquarters is located in my Congressional District--on the

occasion of its 50th anniversary. Established on June 11, 1959 in a small Los Angeles storefront, a handful of Honda associates began selling motorcycles. Fifty years later, American Honda has grown from a single office into a company with significant investments throughout the U.S. and is a leader in fuel economy, safety and environmental technology.

In the midst of the of 1973 oil crisis, Honda introduced the fuel- efficient Civic, marking its official entry into the U.S. market. Two years later, it began market research and new model development activities in America, which today encompass 13 facilities with the capability of complete product creation.

Fast forward to the 1990s, when Honda continued its environmental leadership through investment in advanced internal combustion engines and the introduction in 1999 of the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle in the U.S. On Earth Day of this year, Honda launched the 2010 Insight, a price competitive and exciting new hybrid design.

Starting with eight sales associates in 1959, Honda today employs nearly 28,000 direct employees whose jobs include design, development, manufacturing, sales and service of products ranging from automobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, personal watercraft, outboard marine engines, power equipment and an advanced light jet. Honda's flagship office in Torrance, California employs almost 2,400 people at its sprawling and energy efficient campus.

American Honda has 11 manufacturing plants in the U.S. with two more under construction, 13 research and development facilities, and regional sales, parts, service and finance offices across America. Honda buys parts and materials from 545 U.S. companies in 34 states with annual purchases exceeding $17.5 billion in 2008.

More than just a carmaker, Honda prides itself on community stewardship. Its U.S. charity arm provided over $1.8 million in grants last year--including $75,000 for a local firefighter program.

I offer my hearty congratulations to American Honda, which has established a half century of commitment to investing in this country, innovation and strong environmental leadership. May the next 50 years be just as productive.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me and I rise in strong opposition to this Republican substitute, and in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 1886, to provide long-term nonmilitary aid to a country in the crosshairs of the effort by the Taliban to expand its reach in South Asia.

H.R. 1886 will help persuade the Pakistani people that their future lies with a stable and moderate democratic government and not with an authoritarian, theocratic terrorist organization. But a key to doing this is important language in the bill ensuring access of U.S. investigators to persons suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation. This issue is critical, this language must become law, and I disagree strongly with some in this House and in the other Chamber who say these requirements are overly restrictive and counterproductive.

Pakistan's history of nuclear weapons development has contributed to instability in South Asia and paved the way for A.Q. Khan's insidious and highly profitable proliferation network. Additional and substantial nonmilitary support provided by the U.S. must assure that the security threat to the U.S., which is represented by this network, is minimized.

For at least a decade, A.Q. Khan's illicit network was the most attractive shortcut for nations and rogue organizations interested in acquiring the materials and know-how to build a nuclear device. After illegally securing the capability for Pakistan, which made him a hero at home and a pariah abroad, Khan and his network sold it to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Despite billions of U.S. dollars in aid, former Pakistani President Musharraf pardoned Khan, and earlier this year the Islamabad High Court released him from house arrest.

H.R. 1886, but not the Republican substitute, declares that the U.S. will work with Pakistan to ensure our investigators access to suspected proliferators and to restrict proliferators from travel or other activity that could result in further proliferation. It also incorporates, as the chairman said, language from a bill introduced by several of us to require a presidential assessment and restrict military aid in the future.

I thank the gentleman.

It will restrict military aid in the future unless Pakistan cooperates in efforts to dismantle its nuclear weapons supplier networks.

It is the right thing to do, and I thank the committee for doing it. The world cannot afford another Libya, Iran or North Korea, and we certainly don't want a new nuclear power called al Qaeda.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, less than a mile from this Chamber, a hate crime occurred yesterday. It occurred in a place of remembrance--a sanctuary. That sanctuary, the Holocaust Museum, has meaning for everyone here. It has special meaning for me because my father was a refugee from that Holocaust, and most of his family was killed in it. One exhibit in the Holocaust Museum is a wall of shoes taken from innocent men, women and children before they were gassed to death. Who were they? What lives would they have led? Would their children have ended up serving here as I have?

In the memory of Officer Johns and 6 million innocent Jews, it is time, past time, to end hate.

Madam Speaker, some of the most powerful military and intelligence satellites in the world are designed and produced in my Congressional District. They are remarkably formidable tools that daily assist our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and are indispensable in learning and thwarting the plans of those who would do us harm.

But imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if one of these satellites were directed on your neighborhood or home, a school or place or worship--and without an adequate legal framework or operating procedures in place for regulating their use. I daresay the reaction might be that Big Brother has finally arrived and the black helicopters can't be far behind.

Yet this is precisely what the Department of Homeland Security proposes to do in standing up the benign-sounding National Applications Office, or NAO.

Despite objections by the civil liberties community, a series of letters sent by Members of Congress, an established record of opposition by the House Homeland Security Committee and the prior fencing of funds, the DHS has requested funding in the classified annex to its FY2010 budget for the NAO.

The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the need for the NAO, and fenced funding for the office last year. I understand that the Committee intends to send a strong message again this year. I introduce two bills today to stop the Department of Homeland Security from moving ahead with the misguided National Applications Office.

The first bill, introduced with Representative Norm Dicks, prohibits DHS from expending any funds on this office. The second bill de- authorizes the NAO, requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to close the office immediately.

As proposed, the NAO, housed in the DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis, the NAO would manage the tasking of military intelligence satellites over the United States--despite the absence a of clear legal framework, legitimate Posse Comitatus concerns, and even though the Interior Department already has existing circumscribed authority to deploy satellites over large-scale public events or natural disasters.

In its current form, the NAO would enable a group of undefined law enforcement and homeland security ``users'' greater access to imagery collection capabilities of the intelligence community--purportedly to supplement data already available during disasters or to aid in ``investigations.'' It would serve as a clearinghouse for requests by law enforcement, border security, and other domestic homeland security agencies to access real-time, high-quality feeds from spy satellites. Except law enforcement officials haven't asked for the additional capability and major law enforcement organizations do not believe it is necessary.

The new DHS leadership has assured me in my role as the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism Risk Assessment that the issue is under review. Although Congress last year withheld most funding for the NAO, the Department has again budgeted for the office (the exact amount is classified) without prior notification of the relevant congressional committees.

Well, not if we can help it.

Today, we introduce legislation to shut down the NAO--period.

Madam Speaker, displayed prominently in my district office is an autographed medal featuring the POW/MIA flag. It was given to me and signed by Newt Heisley, the designer of the famous image. The black-and-white flag is a symbol of a Nation's gratitude, respect and commitment to those who never came back. In 1998, legislation I authored was signed into law mandating that the flag be flown above Federal buildings on six days a year, including Veterans and Memorial Day. We will never forget.

Newt Heisley died on May 18, at 88. He led a rich life committed to serving his country, to family, and to his artistic passion--forces that would ultimately inform the design of his seminal work.

In the early 1940s, after graduating from Syracuse University with a Fine Arts degree, Heisley joined the Army Air Forces--where he served heroically as a pilot in the Pacific Theatre in World War II.

After the war, Heisley put his artistic talent to work, joining an advertising agency in New Jersey--where he lived with his wife, Bunny, and son, Jeffrey. Hoping to follow in his father's footsteps, Jeffrey entered Marine Corps training but returned emaciated and sick with hepatitis.

Soon after his son's homecoming in 1971, Heisley was tasked with designing a flag for the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia. Heisley settled on a silhouette of a gaunt man, barbed wire and guard tower. Below that, he wrote ``You are not forgotten.''

To Heisley's surprise, the flag became a national icon. In 1988, it flew over the White House for the first time, and in 1990, Congress adopted it as the official symbol of appreciation for POWs and MIAs.

Despite the newfound fame, Heisley kept his humility. ``I did it for the men who were prisoners of war or missing in action. They're the real heroes,'' he told the Denver Post in 2002, the same year he wrote his autobiography, Faith Under Fire.

This Memorial Day, I will be thinking of them--and Newt Heisley. In words of my dear friend Dave Albert, the former Lomita Councilman, whose failed attempt to get his local post office to fly the POW/MIA flag inspired the 1998 law, Heisley ``was a true patriot for the POW/ MIA cause, and he will never be forgotten.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Chairman Oberstar and this important legislation--and to address provisions that relate to staffing air traffic control towers.

Safety is the most crucial and fundamental feature of America's aviation system. Experience is a huge component of safety. This was demonstrated by the heroic landing by Captain Sullenberger on the Hudson River this past January. It was also demonstrated by air traffic controllers on 9/11, when the national aviation system was shut down and they landed all planes across the country safely.

In this decade, we have seen a significant increase in the number of air traffic controllers retiring. As a result, there has been a need to hire and train new air traffic controllers. Our aviation system has been forced to hire a very large number of new controllers very quickly--no small feat, given the high level of skill and training necessary to do the job. But we can't cut corners with filling crucial positions. I have concerns because the FAA counts controllers who are still training and not fully certified as staff when determining if an air traffic facility is fully staffed.

According to the FAA's ``A Plan for the Future 10-year Strategy for the Air Traffic Control Workforce 2009-2018,'' Appendix A states ``These (staffing) ranges include the number of controllers needed to perform the work. While most of the work is accomplished by CPCs, work is also being performed in facilities by CPC-ITs and position-qualified developments who are proficient, or ``checked out'', in specific sectors or positions and handles workload independently.'' For the clarification, CPCs are certified professional controllers and CPC-ITs are certified professional controllers in training, those that transferred from other facilities, and developmentals are new hires.

Trainees are used in the airport in my district, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)--the fourth busiest airport tower in the United States. According to an April 2009 Department of Transportation Inspector General report: ``As of December 2008 . . . 20 percent of LAX's controller workforce was in training.'' Trainees lack the same amount of experience as certified controllers, and these skills should not be learned on the job. We need to ensure that safety is not compromised at LAX and at other towers across the country.

That is why I support sections, 607, ``FAA Air Traffic Controller Staffing'' and 608, ``Assessment of Training Programs for Air Traffic Controllers.''

Section 607 authorizes a National Academy of Sciences study on FAA's assumptions and methods to determine staffing needs for air traffic controllers. Section 608 authorizes a study by the FAA to assess the adequacy of training programs for air traffic controllers.

These studies will provide us with information to determine if we have enough experienced air controllers staffing our aviation system. If we don't, we must ensure that only those with the training and experience necessary keep the flying public safe and fill these positions. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on this legislation and for including these important provisions in the bill.