Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2279, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part III.'' This bill is a ``clean'' extension of the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to spend from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to carry out airport improvement projects at current levels through July 22, 2011.

In February, the Senate approved a bipartisan, comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill by a wide 87-to-8-vote margin. Passage of the Senate bill was applauded by both labor and industry stakeholders, and it was estimated that the bill would create at least 150,000 jobs.

The House followed on April 1 with a bill containing some controversial provisions that the Senate has indicated it will not accept. These provisions include the repeal of a National Mediation Board rule on fair union representation elections and cuts to funding for FAA programs, airport construction and improvement, and air traffic control modernization.

For the last 2 months, we have worked with the Senate to resolve a number of differences between the two bills. The negotiations have made good progress, and, with just a handful of major differences remaining, we may be on the cusp of enacting a long-term reauthorization--a reauthorization that provides the FAA with the stability and funding necessary to safeguard safety, modernize the system, and create jobs.

Like my Republican colleagues, I had hoped that each of the previous two short-term extensions would be the last. I was reassured by

their expressions of a commitment to deliver a forward-looking bill that could pass both chambers and be signed by the President. But now we find ourselves with the need for a twentieth short-term extension. This extension is necessary, but I again say to my Republican colleagues: Let this extension be the last. Get a long-term bill done.

I will work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a bipartisan FAA bill that will create jobs and keep our economy moving throughout the 21st century and make this our last extension. For the present time, however, this extension is necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of Local 702 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), headquartered in West Frankfort, Illinois.

In 1911, the labor movement in the United States was in a period of rapid growth. Our economy was beginning its shift from agriculture to manufacturing and more of the population was becoming concentrated in metropolitan areas. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, in 1911, tragically exposed unsafe working conditions and provided fuel for the rise of organized labor. Also in 1911, a small group of electrical workers near Herrin, Illinois, petitioned the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for a charter.

The founders of Local 702 wanted the pay and working conditions of those in the electrical trade to be commensurate with those of other skilled craftsmen and they knew the only way to accomplish this was to organize. They quickly began the task of working with area utility companies, and the first recorded bargaining contract was dated January 31, 1917, with the Central Illinois Public Service Company.

During the Great Depression, as our Nation struggled with record levels of unemployment, many members of Local 702 were out of work for prolonged periods. In a display of solidarity, the working members of Local 702 accepted an assessment on their wages that provided relief funding for their unemployed brothers. Loans from Local 702 provided a critical lifeline during the 1930's and some are still being retired today.

IBEW Local 702 considers itself to be a progressive, active local. From its founding as a bargaining unit for electrical workers, Local 702 has expanded to represent workers in many different fields, including manufacturing, instrument technicians, broadcast engineers, and nursing. While the primary focus of the local is the representation of its members, they are also vested in being a positive influence within their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the leadership and members of Local 702 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as they celebrate their 100th Anniversary and to wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the exceptional accomplishments of the Flying Salukis, the flying team at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois. Under the direction of Coach Nathan Lincoln, on May 21, 2011, the Flying Salukis won the 2011 National Intercollegiate Flying Association championship, concluding a weeklong competition at the Ohio State University Airport. The Flying Salukis edged out 26 teams from across the Nation to capture the championship title, which is the eighth in the history of Southern Illinois University's aviation program, and the first since 1985.

With 10 team members scoring a total of 414 points, the Flying Salukis won the title by nine points over the University of North Dakota, a two-time defending champion. The team placed in all 11 events, demonstrating a very well-rounded lineup in both flight and ground events at the competition. Michael Carroll, from Normal, Ill., and one of three team captains, gave a truly exceptional performance, scoring 121 points to become the top-scoring pilot in the Nation and finishing second for the national top pilot award.

In addition, the team won three individual titles. Taylor Bream, from Lake Villa, Ill., won the short-field approach and landing; Ryan Veldman, from Lexington, Ky., won the power-off landing event; and co- captain Daniel Harrington, from Monee, Ill., won the SCAN title. Other team members who scored in events were Scott Blair, from Bloomington, Ill.; David Brown, from Chicago, Ill.; Ryan Buttney, from Lemont, Ill.; Daniel McMahon, from Edina, Mo.; Joshua Mech, from Sheboygan, Wis.; and Samuel Oas, from Villa Park, Ill.

Additional members of the Flying Salukis for the 2011 spring semester include: Courtney Copping, from St. Charles, Ill.; Kyle Hayes, from Bourbonnais, Ill.; Justin Lopez, also from Bourbonnais; Michael Szemplinski, from Geneva, Ill.; and George ``Rusty'' Wharton, III, from Goodfield.

I also want to recognize the Flying Salukis' assistant coaches: senior lecturer Bryan Harrison, assistant instructors Jeffrey Jaynes, Kevin Krongos and Sabrina Zwego, and also Kim Carter, a senior lecturer and academic adviser. In addition to teaching as faculty members in the aviation flight program, these individuals dedicate a great deal of time after classes to assist Coach Lincoln and the team members, and we appreciate their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, Southern Illinois University has a proud tradition in teaching, research and public service, and it is also very well known for its nationally competitive athletic and extracurricular teams. The Flying Salukis have once again demonstrated exactly why this university's aviation program continually ranks as one of the best in the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Flying Salukis and their coaches, as well as the faculty and students at Southern Illinois University for their continuing commitment to excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated community service of Mr. Richard Roehrkasse, as he marks his 20th year as a Trustee for Southwestern Illinois College.

Richard Roehrkasse was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board of Trustees for Southwestern Illinois College (SWIC) in 1991 and has been continuously re-elected since that time. A resident of Red Bud, Illinois, Mr. Roehrkasse had experience in the Information Technology field as a systems analyst, designer and project manager. He had a desire to serve his community and pursued membership on the SWIC Board of Trustees as a way to help ensure access to quality education for area residents.

As a SWIC Trustee, Mr. Roehrkasse has enthusiastically worked with faculty, administration and staff on the Strategic Planning Committee since its inception. He helped to update existing and develop new Board policies and procedures to address strategic planning priorities.

Mr. Roehrkasse has been a consistent, active participant in helping SWIC maintain its longstanding accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), and achieve model-institution recognition from the HLC for its Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) initiatives and achievements.

With his background in Information Technology, Mr. Roehrkasse has been a longstanding champion of IT--from smart-classrooms to community- wide applications--helping to establish SWIC as one of the leading IT- supported community colleges in the state and the nation.

In his longstanding role as Board of Trustees Facilities and Finance Committee Chair, Mr. Roehrkasse has helped to develop and identify funding resources for SWIC and to complete numerous major capital development projects. Among the significant projects to benefit from his involvement are; the Liberal Arts and Information Sciences buildings at the Belleville Campus; renovations and expansions at the Sam Wolf Granite City and Red Bud Campuses; and the Schmidt Art Center, in collaboration with the SWIC Foundation Board.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in an expression of appreciation to Mr. Richard Roehrkasse for his 20 years of service as a Trustee of Southwestern Illinois College and to wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Call for Help, Inc. an organization that is celebrating 40 years of changing lives.

Call for Help, Inc. provides the only 24-hour suicide hotline in the Metro-East area of Southwestern Illinois. Call for Help, Inc., was chartered in 1970 and began as a suicide and crisis hotline, operating out of a basement. While this critical service is still very much a part of Call for Help's program offerings, they have expanded to meet other critical needs through the years.

Two residential programs have been added, one to serve individuals who are homeless and suffer from chronic mental illness. Participants in this program receive medication monitoring, counseling, life skills training and other services. The other residential program provides assistance to homeless young women who are either pregnant or have small children. These women receive support and skill development so they can achieve long-term independence. Training includes life skills, parenting, workplace readiness, GED and other subjects.

Call for Help, Inc. also provides assistance to victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse. Twenty-four-hour response to victims includes arriving on-site at the hospital or police station and help navigating the medical and legal systems.

Last year, Call for Help, Inc., provided critical assistance to over 25,000 individuals and, through the years, they have recorded countless, remarkable stories of success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Board of Directors, administration and staff of Call for Help, Inc., for their 40 years of changing lives and to wish them continued success in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1893, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part II. This bill is a clean extension of the Federal Aviation Administration's authority to spend from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to carry out airport improvement projects at current levels through June 30, 2011.

In February, the Senate approved a bipartisan comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill by a wide 87-8 vote margin. Passage of the Senate bill was applauded by both labor and industry stakeholders, and it was estimated that the bill would create at least 150,000 jobs.

By contrast, last month the House approved a controversial FAA reauthorization bill, H.R. 658, by a party-line vote by the narrowest vote margin in almost 30 years. The White House has threatened to veto the legislation, and the House bill has been criticized by the FAA, the National Transportation and Safety Board, Captain Sully Sullenberger, the families of Colgan Air Flight 3407 who lost loved ones in Buffalo, New York, and in the press because it would undermine aviation safety efforts.

For several weeks we have worked with the Senate to resolve a number of differences between the two bills. However, the most controversial aspects of the House FAA reauthorization bill--the arbitrary $4 billion funding cuts that will have a negative impact on aviation safety and our economy, and a provision that repeals a Federal rule on fair labor elections and mounts an assault on collective bargaining rights--have not been resolved or dropped from the bill.

So despite assurances from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle that we would not have another FAA extension, Congress must now enact the 19th short-term extension. If the House Republicans continue to insist on these controversial poison pill provisions, the enactment of a long-term bill this year is in serious jeopardy, and we will be back here on the floor for more extensions in the future.

We all agree that the FAA desperately needs the stability and direction that a long-term reauthorization

would provide. Further, the American public deserves a long-term FAA reauthorization bill that will create jobs, improve safety, and modernize our infrastructure. But the House FAA reauthorization bill would not accomplish any of these objectives.

I will again say, as I have said many times before, I will work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fair bill that can not only pass the House but also pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President. Let us strip the partisan poison pills from this bill and enact a long-term, bipartisan FAA bill that will create jobs and keep our economy moving throughout the 21st century, and make this our last extension.

For the present time, however, this extension is necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 96 years ago this month, the Ottoman Empire began a brutal campaign against its Armenian citizens, marking the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. At the end of this atrocity in 1923, more than 1.5 million Armenians had perished.

Once again, despite the absence of an official recognition on behalf of the American government, I stand to commemorate the Armenian Genocide. This injustice deserves recognition by the U.S. For years, a resolution affirming the U.S. position on Armenian Genocide has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and, as a member of the House Armenian Issues Caucus, I have cosponsored that resolution.

Over two dozen countries and 43 states, including my home state of Illinois, have affirmed the Armenian Genocide, demonstrating unwavering support for this position. As I have said before, there will never be a convenient time to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide, but we must do what is right and officially declare these atrocities as genocide.

The official commemoration of the Armenian Genocide also provides an opportunity to recognize the indomitable spirit of the Armenian people. Their daily contributions to our communities are the best testament of their kindness, strength and commitment to justice and peace. As a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I call on my colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration to join me in recognizing the 96th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and the significant contributions of the Armenian people.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the budget agreement for the rest of fiscal year 2011. This bill, which contains nearly $40 billion in spending cuts, brings a much-needed conclusion to this year's budget debate.

While I have concerns about some of the cuts in this bill-- particularly to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Aviation Administration--doing nothing is simply not an option. The American people expect us to cut spending and reduce the deficit, and this agreement represents a compromise that moves us forward.

As we take up next year's budget and raising the debt limit, it is my hope that we will do so carefully without undermining our nation's economic recovery. And, as President Obama noted yesterday during his budget address, there must be shared sacrifice. Upper income Americans, corporations and the Department of Defense must be part of the process of cutting spending and increasing revenues, while we ensure that our social safety net remains intact. Programs for our seniors and the poor must not be singled out during this debate.

Madam Chair, we can find budget savings across all departments of the government while still making strategic investments and protecting the safety and security of the American people, and I look forward to continuing this work.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.

Based on the physical evidence and forecasts of most scientists, it is clear climate change is happening, man-made causes are a significant factor, and that left unaddressed, climate change poses a public health risk. I believe we must move forward from debating the science of climate change to developing balanced policies that combat its impacts.

However, I oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I believe Congress must retain the authority to develop a climate change policy that reduces emissions, improves energy efficiency, and encourages clean energy technology, including clean coal, while also protecting and creating jobs, keeping energy costs affordable, and preserving our economic recovery. I am not convinced EPA's current path will achieve those goals.

While I do not agree with all aspects of this legislation, I support H.R. 910, to ensure Congress has the ability to develop a practical climate change policy at the appropriate time. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me and for his kind remarks.

Madam Chair, we all agree that we need a long-term FAA Reauthorization Act. The FAA and the aviation community need stability and direction that a multi-year authorization will provide. However, it's not this bill.

It is important for Members to know that H.R. 658 is a different FAA reauthorization bill from the bipartisan legislation that my colleagues and I worked together on and that passed the House three times during the 110th and 111th Congresses. That legislation would have created jobs, improved aviation safety, and provided the FAA with the resources necessary to modernize airport and air traffic control infrastructure. However, while some aspects of H.R. 658 were in prior House-passed bills and reflect some of my priorities, there are many troubling omissions and newly added provisions in the bill that are unacceptable.

I think we all agree that we must make every effort to be fiscally responsible and cut Federal spending where it makes sense given the size of the deficit. At the same time, we also have a responsibility to the American people to keep our aviation system safe and secure, to make needed improvements to our infrastructure, to strengthen the economy, to create jobs, and to remain competitive. However, I share the concerns of those in the industry that this legislation includes funding cuts that will affect safety and put the flying public at risk, devastate the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System air traffic control modernization effort, and ignore the need to strengthen our economy by creating jobs.

On the jobs issue, let me make it clear. Mr. Rahall said it and I'll say it again: This bill does not create jobs. Instead, it cuts, roughly, $2 billion over the next 4 years in the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The AIP provides funding to airports across the country for infrastructure projects, such as runways and air traffic control towers, and these projects create well-paying construction jobs. A $2 billion decrease in funding in this bill means about 70,000 jobs will be lost. I will repeat that: 70,000 jobs will be lost because of the $2 billion cut in AIP funds. In fact, it leaves so little AIP discretionary funding available that even the most important projects, such as completing runway safety areas by the congressionally mandated deadline, cannot be funded.

Second, my Republican colleagues argue that H.R. 658 directs the FAA to prioritize and to protect safety-related activities within the bill's reduced funding levels. That sounds great, but all the evidence suggests that it can't be done.

In February, the House Aviation Subcommittee held an FAA reauthorization hearing to listen to the aviation industry's stakeholders. The unified message from the industry was loud and clear: Congress cannot roll back FAA funding to 2008 levels without harming safety programs or hampering the industry. President Bush's former FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, stated, ``The prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future if we really have to roll back to 2008 levels and stop NextGen in its tracks.''

A jobs bill? I don't think so--and neither does the person who ran the FAA under the Bush administration.

The FAA is primarily a safety agency, and virtually all of its activities are safety-related. This Congress and the American people need to know that, if we arbitrarily cut $1 billion a year out of the FAA's budget, it absolutely will affect safety. The agency will not do more with less. It will be forced to do less with less, and cuts to these funding levels will have serious consequences.

According to the FAA, the funding reductions in this bill will cause the agency to furlough the aviation safety workforce by hundreds of employees. Fewer safety inspectors, engineers, and support personnel will adversely impact air traffic services, aviation safety certifications and the implementation of NextGen, which will end up costing the taxpayers more in the long run and cause our aviation industry to be less competitive globally.

In addition, a reduction in the workforce will likely mean the delay of important safety regulations, such as those mandated by Congress in the new aviation safety law that was enacted last year in a bipartisan vote in response to the Colgan Flight 3407 tragedy in Buffalo, New York. Further, this legislation will force important safety-related airport improvement projects to be delayed or abandoned, such as wildlife hazard assessment. These types of assessments would help airports mitigate hazards like the one that brought down U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in 2009 in which Captain Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles were forced to land in the Hudson River because a flock of geese damaged the plane's engines.

As Mr. Rahall indicated, just last week, two planes landed safely, without clearance, at Washington National Airport because, reportedly, a single person in charge at the control tower apparently fell asleep. While investigations are ongoing, we have certainly seen accidents in the past where air traffic control staffing and fatigue were a factor, such as in the August 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.

I applaud Secretary LaHood's decision to reevaluate staffing needs throughout the country. Congress will also need to closely examine air traffic control staffing and fatigue going forward; but this incident should make it clear: Now is not the time to arbitrarily cut almost $4 billion from FAA programs and argue that the agency can do more with less without compromising safety.

I know Mr. Rahall and others have talked about a provision in the legislation that I believe, too, is a ``poison pill.'' I will not go into all of the details as we will have an amendment later; but let me just say that the LaTourette-Costello amendment, I hope, will be supported by the Members of this body. It is a ``poison pill'' provision, section 903 in this legislation, that is certain to hold the legislation up in the Senate. There is no way that I see the Senate will act on that provision, and the White House, of course, has already issued a statement saying that the President will receive recommendations from his advisers to veto the bill.

If we are serious about passing a long-term FAA bill, this provision must come out. If it remains in the bill, it will be rejected by the Senate and the White House.

Madam Chair, I will again say--and I have said many times before--I will work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a fair bill that cannot only pass the House but also pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President. H.R. 658 in its current form will not pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President and will require significant changes before it's enacted.

Finally, Madam Chair, let me address a couple of comments that my friend the chairman of the full committee led off with in his remarks. He indicated that the Democrats when we were in charge for all of these years and we weren't able to pass legislation, we had to have 17 extensions. I would remind my friend that both in 2007, 2009, and in 2010 we passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the FAA. It was our friends in the Senate, in fairness, that held the legislation up. It took them 3 years to pass an FAA reauthorization bill, and in fact, as my friend from Florida will remember, it was the two Senators from Tennessee that held the bill up in the Senate, and it was two issues that were held up in the Senate, and those issues involved both PFCs and DCA, the number of slots at Washington Reagan National airport.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, and hope that after we reject this bill we can go back and get a bill that accomplishes what we set out to do in the legislation, the bipartisan legislation that we passed last year.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we support the gentleman's amendment.

This is a provision that was contained in the FAA bill that was passed, H.R. 915 and H.R. 1586, that passed this Congress with bipartisan support. We strongly support the gentleman's amendment and ask our colleagues to support it as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The amendment is very clear. It's simple. It's to the point. It requires the FAA, when certificating a repair station, whether domestic or foreign, to make sure that the repair station carries out a consistent screening of its employees for criminal records. I mean, it is very clear. It is to the point.

The amendment complies with all of our obligations under international law, and the amendment will move the FAA forward in creating one level of safety, both for domestic and international repair stations.

Mr. Chairman, we support the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman may or may not know that this is the one issue that held us up from getting an FAA reauthorization bill in the last Congress. In fact, we could not get the bill out of the Senate because of this issue. It would, in fact, be an earmark for one airline.

I support the language that is currently in the bill. It's taken years for us to negotiate where we are with this issue, and I, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is worth pointing out that last July Mr. Petri and I held a hearing at the Aviation Subcommittee, and we had the GAO come in. It was on consumer issues, and not only the GAO but also consumer groups came in, and the message was clear from every witness that had consumers' interests in mind.

Number one, these fees were excessive. Two, information about baggage fees should be transparent and immediately disclosed so that consumers can compare the total cost of flights offered of the different carriers.

So, this legislation helps bring more equity and transparency to the process. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The amendment unfairly singles out the FAA unionized employees from all other Federal employees. Under Federal law, an employee representing a union has a right to receive ``official time'' to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement and participate in impasse proceedings. In addition, the law permits an agency and a union to negotiate the availability of official time as long as the time is ``reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.''

Mr. Chairman, additionally, the purpose of the official time is to give Federal employees the opportunity to represent their colleagues on issues ranging from discrimination to managerial misconduct and to resolve disputes in a cooperative fashion at the lowest level rather than resorting to the costly litigation. The cost of arbitrating one case is estimated to be at least $10,000, and that does not include the salary and expenses for the time spent by the two attorneys the FAA uses on every case.

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully submit this is an issue that should be left to be negotiated between the agency and the employees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my friend from Texas.

As Mr. Rahall just stated, for nearly 80 years, the Davis-Bacon Act has guaranteed fairness in wages and conditions for Americans who serve the public good and perform public works for the Federal Government. At a time when so many Americans are out of work and under financial stress, this amendment would strip away workers' rights to just compensation for their labor that directly benefits all of us by keeping aviation infrastructure across the Nation working safely. Further, the amendment would likely make it difficult for FAA contractors to find skilled workers who have the expertise necessary to perform work on complicated safety-critical facilities and equipment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the points made by my friend from Ohio.

The National Mediation Board made the right decision, incidentally, at the request of 191 Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, after holding many hearings. In the words of Congresswoman Candice Miller: ``This is not a pro-union or anti-union vote. This is about fairness.''

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would impose new legislative requirements on the FAA's ability to propose or issue regulations. Many of the proposed requirements are redundant and are already required by existing law in Executive orders.

For example, the FAA is already required to consider the cost and benefits of regulations and to base its regulation on scientific and technical information. Other requirements, such as forcing the FAA to tailor regulations for each industry's segment, could seriously undermine efforts to achieve one level of safety in aviation and delay important safety improvements.

Mr. Chairman, last Congress, the House Aviation Subcommittee conducted extensive aviation safety oversight, including numerous hearings stemming from the February 2009 Colgan Flight 3407 tragedy. These hearings did not reveal a pattern of arbitrary or draconian rules imposed by the FAA on the aviation industry. Rather, they revealed a pattern of the industry's resistance to proposed safety regulations, many of which resulted from extensive accident investigations and which, nonetheless, languished for years.

The Flight 3407 families who tragically lost their loved ones 2 years ago in Buffalo, New York, were instrumental in the adoption of H.R. 5900, and they continue to monitor the implementation of this important law, holding industry's feet and the FAA's feet to the fire. They are opposed to this amendment because they are also concerned about the adverse impact it would have on the current FAA rulemaking on pilot fatigue.

Earlier today, Captain Sully Sullenberger, the former U.S. Air captain who safely landed in the Hudson River 2 years ago after a flock of geese damaged both his plane's engines, said he was extremely concerned that the Shuster amendment will prevent critical safety regulations from being implemented.

This amendment is not needed. It purports to fix a system that is not broken. At best, it is redundant; at worst, it will delay necessary rulemakings, including those on 84 open NTSB recommendations, to the detriment of the flying public.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question, at least from legal counsel that we have talked to, that it would absolutely affect current regulations and those that are pending right now under consideration.

So I would ask the gentleman--I believe I understand his intent--if he would consider withdrawing the amendment, working with the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, myself and Mr. Rahall, as we go into conference.

I yield to the gentleman for an answer.

I thank the gentleman, and we continue to strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose the amendment. We believe that it will add additional red tape, and there is no evidence at all that the FAA regulations--our history, in fact--favor anyone, other than there has been a reluctance on the part of the industry to comply with regulations. What this will do is drag it out even further and have a negative effect on those pending regulations as well as the existing ones. So we continue to oppose.

I will be happy to work with the gentleman. I know he has good intentions, and I will be happy to work with him, but would continue to oppose and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of international religious freedom and to voice my concern for the seven Baha'i leaders, known as the Yaran, who were unjustly convicted by the Iranian regime and sentenced to 10 years in prison for their religious beliefs.

As documented by years of reported abuse and discrimination by the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and other international organizations, government respect for religious freedom and human rights in Iran is steadily declining. According to the State Department's 2010 International Religious Freedom report, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution over 200 Baha'is have been killed, many have been imprisoned, and thousands more have faced regular discrimination and public admonishment by the Iranian government.

Government rhetoric and actions create an oppressive environment for religious minorities in Iran, particularly the Baha'i, and instances such as the incarceration of the Yaran provide ample evidence of this. As a member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, my colleagues and I have worked to bring attention to these injustices and hold human rights violators accountable. The Iranian Baha'i are deeply devoted to peace and unity and their bravery in the face of injustice encourages others to work for universal human rights.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government and the international community must continue to speak out against these oppressive acts. I call on my colleagues in Congress to join me in denouncing the imprisonment of the Yaran and partner with the international community to insist Iran release these individuals, strengthen the basic rights of their citizens, and provide an environment in which individuals can express their religion without fear of persecution or intimidation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 25th anniversary of the St. Clair County, Illinois, Health Department.

By 1985, there was gathering evidence of the need for a public health department to serve the residents of St. Clair County. Since the 1930s there had been a health department, the East Side Health District, to serve the residents of East St. Louis and several surrounding communities but public health care services did not exist for residents outside the East Side Health District service area.

As Chairman of the St. Clair County Board at the time, I was very concerned that county residents did not have access to public health services. As a result, I appointed a citizens committee, made up of concerned citizens and health care professionals, to determine if there was, indeed, a need for a county-wide public health department.

After many meetings and input from the public, in October of 1985, I presented a resolution to the St. Clair County Board that was approved, creating the St. Clair County Health Department. I am very proud to have played a role in establishing the St. Clair County Health Department.

The new Board of Health met to elect officers in January, 1986, and recruited Kevin Hutchinson to serve as the Executive Director, a post he has held to this day. Funding for the Health Department came from the existing tuberculosis tax, which was converted to a public health tax.

The new Health Department focused on the most critical priorities initially, targeting issues such as communicable disease prevention, food safety and maternal and child health. Today, the Health Department is organized into four divisions, Administration, Health Protection, Community Health and Personal Health.

Evidence of the need for this department can be found in its growth and expansion during the past 25 years. From just over 20 employees and a budget of under $500,000, the department has grown to 70 employees and a budget exceeding $6 million. While the need is great, the dedicated professionals of the St. Clair County Health Department continue to meet that need by providing excellent health care, prevention services and educational outreach to the communities and residents of St. Clair County.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the board of directors, administration and employees of the St. Clair County

Health Department, as well as the members of the St. Clair County Board, on their 25th anniversary, and wishing them the very best for many more years of continued service to the people of St. Clair County, Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Patients Rights Repeal Act of 2011.

Less than one year ago, the 111th Congress achieved a major milestone in the decades-long effort to ensure access to quality health care for all Americans by passing the Affordable Care Act and reforming our broken health care system. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, I have seen its benefits first hand in the district I am privileged to represent. Over 9,800 seniors in Southwestern and Southern Illinois will see a 50 percent discount on their medications when they enter the Medicare Part D coverage gap, saving them $5.1 million. An additional 112,000 seniors will receive free preventive care, including cancer and diabetes screenings. As of September 2010, up to 37,000 children in my district with pre-existing conditions are no longer denied coverage by insurance companies and in 2014 up to 238,000 adults will have the same protection. In the St. Louis Metro area, 13,600 young adults will remain on their parents' health insurance plans up to age 26 and maintain their access to affordable care, and the 2.4 million individuals with private health insurance are protected from predatory practices of insurance companies and arbitrary premium rate increases.

Despite this significant progress, today we are considering the Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which will strip my constituents of these new benefits and return us to the broken, expensive health care system that left 47 million Americans uninsured.

Just as our constituents cannot afford to lose these benefits, we cannot afford the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, passing this legislation will increase the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years and by more than $1.2 trillion over 20 years. The CBO also estimates that this bill will increase premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for everyone enrolled in private insurance plans.

Further, despite the claims of my Republican colleagues, there is no evidence that repealing health care reform will create new jobs or spur economic growth. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have added 1.1 million new private sector jobs to the economy. Further, a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates the Affordable Care Act will create 4 million additional new jobs in the next 10 years by lowering costs and investing in the health care workforce. These new, good-paying jobs will disappear with the passage of repeal.

The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect bill. Provisions, including the unworkable 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses, will be adjusted or replaced as we move forward to implement the bill. Just as we have changed Medicare and Social Security over the last several decades to ensure those programs achieve their goals, we will work together to adapt the Affordable Care Act and keep health care affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to adopt strong alternatives.

However, just as we have never repealed Medicare or Social Security, I will not vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act and return to a health care system that is unsustainable, inefficient, and massively expensive. We must continue to move forward and ensure that our health care system works for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, passing the Patients'' Rights Repeal Act will dramatically expand the deficit, slow job creation, increase the cost of health care, and deny millions of Americans access to health coverage. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.