Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Oberstar for recognizing me and thank you for all of your leadership and your support. No one knows more about aviation or transportation issues in this country than Chairman Oberstar, and I think everyone…
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Oberstar for recognizing me and thank you for all of your leadership and your support. No one knows more about aviation or transportation issues in this country than Chairman Oberstar, and I think everyone acknowledges that and respects not only his valuable input but the work that he does for this committee and on behalf of the American people.
To Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri, as Mr. Mica has indicated, we have worked closely together on this legislation. As Chairman Oberstar stated, about 95 percent of what is in this bill was contained in the bill when the House passed it in September of 2007 by a vote of 267 Members passing the legislation. It truly was a bipartisan piece of legislation.
The bill provides increased funding levels, as Chairman Oberstar indicated, for the Airport Improvement Program, for the facilities and equipment program, and for the FAA operations. The funds will help improve our airports, upgrade our facilities, and modernize our air traffic control system.
In addition, we provide a consumer protection provision in this bill that forces airports and airlines to come up with an emergency contingency plan, and we install a consumer hotline for consumers to call the FAA for any complaints that they may have and any violations of the emergency contingency plans filed by the airports and airlines. For any violations, there are civil penalties.
It does establish a process to settle a labor dispute between the FAA and the controllers, and it takes steps to move us forward in upgrading our ground-based radar system to the next generation ATC.
The United States, I think we have to continue to point out, has the safest aviation system in the world; but in order to maintain that system and improve it, we need to pass this reauthorization bill. Let me make just a few comments regarding a few items that Mr. Mica mentioned.
Number one, the NATCA issue with the air traffic controllers. There is a process that is moving forward now with this administration. We hope that negotiations are successful, and we hope that there is a voluntary agreement. However, this bill does not contain provisions dealing with compensation. Congress is not dictating to either the administration or to anyone what wages should be, nor do we address that in our bill at all. It has everything to do with the process, and nothing to do with salaries and benefits.
Number two, it deals with in fact two fundamental principles: the rights of workers and the right to collectively bargain. So if, in fact, you believe in collective bargaining, you will support the provisions in this bill, as we did through committee and we did in 2007.
Secondly, as far as two issues concerning the foreign repair stations, I think Chairman Oberstar addressed that issue, but let me just comment that I probably have more workers in my district that work in repair stations, domestic repair stations, than any other district in the country. If I thought for a moment that this was a job killer, the fact that we insist that we have two inspections per year, on ground, in person, inspections on foreign repair stations, if I thought that would jeopardize the jobs that I have in my district or any place in this country, I certainly would not be supporting the provision in the bill. It is not a job killer. We have the right in the Congress and this legislative body under the agreements that we have with the European Union and others to move forward and insist that we have inspections of these foreign repair stations so that we can protect the American people. It is a safety issue.
And with that, let me just conclude by saying this is a good bill. We are 2 years behind in passing this legislation. We appreciate the support and the bipartisan relationship in working together on this bill. We look forward to passing this bill today and then working with our colleagues in the other body to get an agreement so we can get a bill on the President's desk.
Mr. Chair, today is an important day for the future of our aviation system. We are considering H.R. 915, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009''. This comprehensive bill would provide approximately $70 billion to modernize our air traffic control system, fund airport development, research programs, small community service and Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, operating expenses. H.R. 915 was produced after many hearings, in-depth analysis, and a continued dialogue with the FAA, our colleagues, and stakeholders.
Mr. Chair, this legislation is now almost two years behind schedule. In September 2007, the House approved a similar bill with a few additions, H.R. 2881, by a vote of 267 to 151. However, the reauthorization process has been bogged down because of inaction by the other body. Since that time we have been acting under short-term funding extensions and continuing resolutions that are delaying key Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, and airport capital development projects.
Although there are a few contentious issues that have marked this reauthorization process, virtually the entire aviation community-- airlines, airports, general aviation, state aviation officials--have communicated to us in a unified voice the need to get a multi-year reauthorization bill done as soon as possible.
The FAA forecasts that the airlines are expected to carry more than 1 billion passengers in 2021, up from almost 760 million in 2008. To deal with this growth, strengthen our economy, and create jobs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 provides historic funding levels for FAA's capital programs. This includes $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, nearly $13.4 billion for FAA Facilities & Equipment, and $1 billion for Research, Engineering, and Development. The bill also provides $39.3 billion for FAA Operations over the next four years.
These funding levels will accelerate the implementation of NextGen, enable the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment, improve airport development, and provide for the implementation of high-priority safety-related systems.
H.R. 915 also changes the organizational structure of the FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office, JPDO, the body charged with planning NextGen. To increase the authority and visibility of the JPDO, H.R. 915 elevates the Director of the JPDO to the status of Associate Administrator for NextGen within the FAA, to be appointed by, and reporting directly to, the FAA Administrator. To increase accountability and coordination of NextGen planning and implementation, H.R. 915 requires the JPDO to develop a work plan that details, on a year-by-year basis, specific NextGen-related deliverables and milestones required by the FAA and its partner agencies.
Like the 2007 bill, we increase the passenger facility charge cap from $4.50 to $7.00 to help airports that choose to participate in the PFC program meet their capital needs. According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting a $4.00 or $4.50 PFC raised its PFC to $7.00, it would generate approximately $1.3 billion in additional revenue for airport development each year which strengthens our economy and creates additional jobs at a time when both are critically needed. H.R. 915 provides significant increases in AIP funding for smaller airports that rely on AIP for capital financing. The ability to raise the PFC and the increase in AIP funding provides financing for airport capital development that will help reduce delays.
The bill also dramatically increases funding for and improves the Essential Air Service program and reauthorizes the Small Community Air Service Development program through 2012.
To prevent another ``meltdown'' of the aviation system like what we saw during the summer of 2007, when the system was fraught with congestion, delays and poor customer service, H.R. 915 mandates that air carriers and airports create emergency contingency plans that are approved and enforced by the Department of Transportation, DOT. This legislation also requires the DOT to publicize and maintain a hotline for consumer complaints; expand consumer complaints investigated; require air carriers to report diverted and canceled flight information monthly; and create an Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. H.R. 915 also requires DOT to conduct schedule reduction meetings if aircraft operations exceed hourly capacity and are adversely affecting national or regional airspace. Finally, H.R. 915 also provides civil penalties for violations.
Here at home and across the globe, more is being done to reduce energy consumption and emissions. The aviation community continues to be a leader in greening its operations. We further those efforts by establishing the CLEEN Engine and Airframe Technology Partnership and the Green Towers Program, which was modeled after what is currently being done at O'Hare International Airport.
The United States has the safest air transportation system in the world; however, we must not become complacent about our past success. To keep proper oversight on safety at FAA, H.R. 915 directs the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors, initiates studies on fatigue, and requires the FAA to inspect part 145 certified foreign repair stations at least twice a year. We also provide $46 million over four years for runway incursion reduction programs; $325 million over four years for runway status lights; and require the FAA to submit a strategic runway safety plan to Congress.
Combined with the tax title from Ways & Means, H.R. 915 does not impose new fees on airspace users. This concept has generated tremendous controversy and, frankly, has helped to seriously delay the reauthorization process. Instead, H.R. 915 would adjust the general aviation, GA, jet fuel tax rate from 21.8 cents per gallon to 35.9 cents per gallon, and the aviation gasoline tax rate from 19.3 cents per gallon to 24.1 cents per gallon.
We believe that Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues, coupled with additional revenue from the recommended GA fuel tax rate increases, and a reasonable General Fund contribution, will be sufficient to provide for the historic capital funding levels required to modernize the air traffic control system.
There are two provisions in the H.R. 915 that I believe are necessary for improving morale at the FAA; providing fair bargaining rights to employees of the FAA and at all express carriers; and helping to maintain safety in our aviation system.
The first provision requires that if the FAA and one of its bargaining units do not reach agreement during contract negotiations, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services are used or another agreed to alternative dispute resolution process; this process applies to the ongoing dispute between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, NATCA, and the FAA. This legislation sends the FAA and NATCA back to the bargaining table where the FAA declared an impasse. It calls for $20 million in backpay and calls for binding arbitration if the FAA and NATCA cannot reach an agreement. These are the same provisions that were in H.R. 2881 that passed the House during the 110th Congress.
I have spent many hours trying to bring both sides together to work out their differences. Chairman Oberstar and I have convened countless meetings between the FAA and NATCA in hopes of reaching a voluntary agreement. I know Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri have also spent time on this issue.
Unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached and that left us with only one clear course of action--binding arbitration.
I strongly believe in collective bargaining and bargaining in good faith with a fair dispute resolution process for both sides. Unfortunately, that did not happen in 2006 and we corrected that wrong in the T&I Committee by adopting the Costello amendment with a strong bipartisan vote of 53-16. This amendment is included in H.R. 915 and will ensure fair treatment of FAA employees.
I am pleased Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has appointed former Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey to oversee a team of mediators to immediately address the contract dispute between the Federal Aviation Administration and National Air Traffic Controllers Association. President Obama has shown great leadership that will guide a positive way forward in which aviation safety professionals will be included as valued stakeholders.
The second provision provides consistency in collective bargaining rights throughout the express carrier industry by allowing ground handling and trucking workers to organize under the National Labor Relations Act, which allows for organization at the local level. Those workers who are directly involved with the aircraft operation portion of those companies, like pilots and mechanics, would continue to be under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act. This is consistent with how UPS is structured today and is identical to the provision in
Mr. Mica, let me just say that when you state that Midcoast Aviation will lose 1,300-and-something jobs, you're supposing a lot of things will happen here. There is no evidence at all that any repair station in this country will lose one job. You suppose that there will be retaliation. You suppose that it will break an agreement that we have with the European Union, and, in fact, it does not, and I think Chairman Oberstar made that clear.
So I think we could stand here tonight or today and say that if this airline went bankrupt or if this business went bankrupt, so many jobs would be lost, or certain action was taken toward a company, that these jobs would be lost. But there's a lot of things that have to happen before one job is lost.
And as I said earlier, and I will repeat again, if I thought for a minute that either the repair station in my district, and there is more than one, or the repair stations in any district in the country would suffer as a result of this, I would not be supporting the provision.
I would ask you, Mr. Mica: In the figures that you were using from Midcoast Aviation and all of the other figures you just said, 7,000 and something jobs in Democrat districts on the Aviation Subcommittee, are you assuming that all of those facilities will close, that they will completely shut down and that every job will be lost?
I yield to the gentleman.
I understand.
Reclaiming my time.
Meaning, for every single person employed at Midcoast Aviation and for every facility on the list, if our European friends retaliate, all of those facilities are going to shut down, and everybody is going to lose their jobs? Is that what you're saying?
You're listing the number of people who work at those facilities?
Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. I rise in support of the manager's amendment. Let me address a couple of issues that my friend, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Mica spoke about as far as the agreement that we have and the foreign repair stations--the mandate that we inspect those repair stations at least twice a year.
Number one, the FAA not only has a right, but they have a responsibility to the flying public in the United States not only to inspect those repair stations when there is a problem or a complaint or an issue that is brought up, but they have a responsibility to inspect those repair stations and make sure that all of the repair stations both here in the United States and abroad are meeting the FAA regulations.
I wonder if the groups and organizations who wrote letters in opposition
to this read the Department of Transportation Inspector General's report where, and I quote, ``The DOT inspector general stated that foreign inspectors oftentimes do not provide the FAA with sufficient information to determine the items inspected, problems discovered, and corrective actions taken.''
The report goes on to say, ``In the files that the Department of Transportation inspector general reviewed, the inspection documents provided to the FAA were incomplete or incomprehensible 88 percent of the time, hampering the FAA's ability to verify the inspections conducted on its behalf adhered to FAA safety standards.''
So let me just say that for those who are concerned about this requirement of having two physical inspections of foreign repair stations, this is the same language that was in the bill that was passed by this House by a vote of 267 Members in favor of the legislation. It is the exact same language--to have two inspections per year of foreign repair stations.
The final point that I would make is we, again, in this legislation provide additional funding to the FAA to hire additional inspectors to carry out these inspections.
I thank Chairman Oberstar again. Mr. Petri, I would just finally say again that we have the Department of Transportation inspector general report. We understand that there are a number of inspections that take place by other agencies outside of the FAA.
But let me again read to you from the Department of Transportation inspector general. ``In the files that the DOT IG reviewed, the inspection documentation provided to the FAA was incomplete or incomprehensible 88 percent of the time, hampering the FAA's ability to verify that inspections conducted on its behalf adhered to FAA safety standards.''
What we are simply saying is that we want the FAA to go to foreign repair stations and physically inspect them twice a year. And we are saying to our friends in Europe if they want to inspect repair stations that they are using here in the United States twice a year, or more than twice a year, they are more than welcome to do that.
We believe that we have the right--not only the right, but an obligation to the flying public to require these inspections.
I would also finally note we're talking about agreements that were negotiated by the past administration with our friends in Europe, and the past administration did not consult the Aviation Subcommittee or the Transportation Committee or the Congress when they negotiated these agreements.
So we believe this is a reasonable thing to do. It was in the last bill that passed the Congress in September, 2007; 267 Members voted in favor of that bill with this provision in it. And we believe that it is the right thing to do and a reasonable thing to do, and it's an obligation we have to ensure the safety of the flying public.
Will the gentlewoman yield?
Let me say that you have made a very strong case, and we accept your amendment.
I thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
The point that I would make about the passenger facility charges is exactly the point that Chairman Oberstar just made. It is permissive. It is up to the local airport authority. And if, in fact, there is a passenger facility charge collected, it stays there at the local airport.
Mr. PAYNE: Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Burgess amendment to ensure whistleblower protection for FAA employees, and I commend Dr. Burgess for offering this amendment. I have been deeply disturbed at the situation at Newark Liberty International Airport in my congressional district of Newark, New Jersey. The safety concerns raised by a number of our air traffic controllers, the professionals we rely on to get us safely to and from our destinations, have been virtually ignored.
We have a situation where wrong turns caused by pilots' confusion over the FAA's new procedure have resulted in near-collisions. Yet, when the air traffic controllers have expressed alarm, the response of FAA management has been to retaliate against the employees who are trying to guard the safety of the flying public. Let me also add that I am disappointed that New Jersey communities, especially those in Essex and Union counties in my congressional district, are being forced to bear an unfair share of the noise burden under the airspace redesign plan. I hope that the new FAA administrator will address both the whistleblower protection issue and the need to reexamine the airspace redesign plan.
I ask the gentleman to yield.
The gentleman has made a strong case. We accept the amendment, and we will submit a statement in the Record.
I claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we commend the gentlewoman on her amendment. We accept it and yield back the balance of our time.