Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I was planning to offer to the House and to the committee for its consideration, as we consider one of the most important appropriations measures that the House will consider, and that's for our homeland security, I was prepared to offer an amendment here at this juncture to limit some of the funds that are made available to the Transportation Security Administration.

My intent is, I think, well founded in having had the opportunity to review TSA's operations, actually one of the individuals responsible for creating TSA back after the events of 9/11, when we had to put in place a transportation security measure and operation for the Nation which we didn't have prior to that.

When we set up TSA, and particularly where we provided for a new way of aviation passenger screening, we actually created two models: one, a private sector model, which is the Federal setting of guidelines and all of the rules for conducting screening and then Federal operation of the screening; but also a second model, which was Federal Government setting the rules and the protocols for operation but using private screeners.

We set up five models of different-sized category airports to test this and see how it would work, testing the all-Federal model against the Federal model with private operators. I can tell you that after testing this several years, after operational testing not by me but by the Government Accountability Office, they found, in fact, that the private screeners performed statistically significantly better than the other screeners.

TSA wasn't happy with these findings, and it captured a great deal of the market and activity, so they did everything they could to distort some of the findings and change the way the airports were tested.

Even so, about 16 airports now operate with private screeners under Federal supervision. Tomorrow our committee, and this is the Transportation Committee, our Investigations and Oversight Committee will reveal the most comprehensive report of looking at these operations, and we are comparing apples and apples to see which one runs better and more cost effectively for the taxpayer.

Without a doubt, this report will show the substantial savings. In fact, within 5 years, if we converted 38 of the top airports to Federal operations, again, Federal oversight with private screening, we could save $1 billion.

And I was prepared to try to transfer earlier in the bill double the amount of money. There's $144 million in here for private screening operations under Federal supervision that we currently have, and double that amount of money which could have gotten us much more passenger screening and do it much more cost effectively for the taxpayers. And actually most of our initiatives, positive initiatives, have come from these private screening models. In any event, that was my intent.

At this point in the bill, I can only take money from the overall screening activity or limit it. It's my understanding that after I strike the last word, I'll have an opportunity to offer an amendment that will, in fact, limit the amount of money for the all-Federal screening model--not taking it out of TSA, but giving discretion to the administrator and hopefully applying it. Once again, we restart the private screening under Federal supervision. Actually, as I speak, all 16 airports continue, but we restart opening it to other airports.

I want to make certain that we have the funds available to accomplish that goal. And that's the purpose of my amendment. So I'm not taking away from the overall money to TSA. I'm limiting the amount of money that can be used. And now we have a Federal screening force, I'm told, of some 41,000, give or take 500, screeners. This bill authorizes up to 46,000 I'm told. So we stay within the caps.-

I have an amendment at the desk.-

Mr. Chairman, I do want to apologize to the members of the committee because we want to make certain that if we offer the amendment that it was in the proper form as originally drafted. It was on a previous page. And I understand from the Parliamentarian that we could only do a limitation at this particular stage. So that's why I had the time to explain and striking the last word, my position and some of the history of my involvement with this. It's not that I'm just a Johnny-come-lately on the floor to do some mischief with TSA. It's that I helped to actually create the agency. I want it to be effective. I want taxpayer money to be properly expended.

But when I see the results--and I've seen the way the TSA operates. They started with 16,500 screeners on 9/11. And what failed on 9/11 was not the private screeners. It was the Federal Government, because the Federal Government failed to put in place the rules, the protocols, the standards and the levels of operation. They were stalling for years, I found out, and never put them in place. And that's something we had to do.

But what we did is, again, we set up two models. And airports have had the right to opt out from the very beginning and go to private screening under Federal supervision. Now, we've been there. We've seen how it works. We have entire States that have said that they want the opportunity to have the second model, which has proven to be most cost effective, not just from dollars and cents, but also from efficiency and effectiveness in operation.

This is all about the performance of TSA, and the models that have been independently tested will show you that private screeners, under Federal supervision, again, proper oversight, setting the rules, they perform better.

So the purpose of this is to set aside some of that money. TSA came in, and I think that the administrator, while well intended, was kept in the dark and fed a lot of mushrooms on what happens with these programs.

And in order to justify 3,700 positions, administrative positions in Washington, D.C., just in Washington, D.C., 3,700 positions making on average $105,000 a person--imagine that, what we've created--and another 8,000-plus administrators out in the field, but to justify those positions, what they did was they fudged--and GAO has also confirmed this--the facts on the cost of the private operation, again, under Federal supervision of passenger screening.

So all this does--it doesn't take any money out of TSA--is it gives the administrator the discretion to have that money, and he can use it for screening. And we believe that with the pending applications, which this bill and your

bill helps open up, we want to make certain that there are adequate funds available to do it in the most cost-effective manner. And that's what my amendment provides for.

So, again, the whole point of this is doing the best possible job for security. And stop and think about this: this bill provides $3 billion- plus just for screening, 3 billion. I think the total of this bill is, what, $8 billion, staff? The entire bill is 46.

But just for TSA is how much? 7.8, close to $8 billion for TSA's operation. And I wouldn't begrudge them a penny if it, in fact, were used properly for the security of our Nation to make certain that people are safe in the skies.

But I'm saying that this amendment does make certain that for a very cost-effective means of providing passenger screening, we can do a better job. We'll have the money available, and we won't rely on just the all-Federal model.

So I urge support for this amendment and your consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Let me just try to clarify the record. The information I have on the number of screeners from our investigative staff director is 49,553 screeners. That is the figure given to us by TSA. The number of screeners is 49,553.

The other point, too, when I said 3,700 administrative personnel, I'm talking about TSA bureaucrats here. I'm not talking about screening force. Not one screener am I including in that. I'm just talking about TSA headquarters or TSA administrative personnel making, on average, $105,000 a year. Now I'm not talking about the screeners. These poor screeners, some of the screeners are starting at the lowest wage. The money isn't going for professional screeners, although this bill, I understand the average pay is about, if you calculate $3 billion divided by 49,000, you come close to $60,000, and there are costs for benefits and all that, I grant you. But let me just try to make the record clear, again: We have 3,700 administrative TSA people in the headquarters or associated here in the Washington area, not screeners.

Well, again, the justification of most of the 3,700 who fed the administrator mushrooms and kept him in the dark was in fact you had someone to supervise all of these people. We have another 8,000 supervisors out in the field.

When you go through the airport line sometime, I challenge you to ask some of these people what they are doing standing around, the thousands standing around. The whole point of this is there is another model, and we created that in 2001. We have 16 airports, five initially. The biggest one is in the minority leader's district, Ms. Pelosi. It set the standards, the example for the rest of us. And tomorrow, we will show a report, and we have examined position by position with San Francisco airport against LAX because we want to compare apples to apples. You will see the incredible savings. You'll see the efficiency, which is like twice as much with private screeners.

So I am taking the money and the positions out of the all Federal and making them available to the discretion of the administrator to use them hopefully for this SBP program, which is private screeners under Federal supervision, which worked so well.

Again, I would love nothing more than to have the jurisdiction. I do not have the jurisdiction. I do have jurisdiction for some oversight, which we have assumed.

Yes, they do. So I will be here when Homeland Security cows come marching through the pasture here and try to make the changes that are necessary. We have discussed with your staff the changes that we believe are necessary. But I don't have that jurisdiction; I wish I did. But I am doing all I can to work with the Appropriations Committee. Your professionals

are doing all they can within the limitations of your jurisdiction. I am doing my little oversight bit, and then we have the Homeland Security Committee that will march forward with their authorization. And I will be here for that parade.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to thank the members of the committee for allowing me to bring forth this amendment, also the Rules Committee for allowing me to have it considered by the House.

This is a simple amendment, and this is an amendment that I almost think I'm offering not on behalf of myself but on behalf of our troops. I usually don't get involved in armed services matters, but I did have the opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan in March of some weeks past. And I was out in some of the forward operating positions in Afghanistan, and I asked the troops a question--you know, sometimes you get a few minutes of quiet time with our troops that are serving us out there in those dangerous areas out there. And I said, When I return to Congress, what could I do to help you do a better job? What would assist you?

And every one of them said to me, Mr. Mica, could you change the rules of engagement?

So I'm offering this amendment on their behalf and on behalf of all the servicemen and -women who should be able to defend themselves in hostile areas. I'm not trying to micromanage the military, but I have just a basic provision that says--and let me read it: ``The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of engagement applicable to members of the armed services assigned to duty in any hostile fire area''--and we have a definition for that--``shall,'' and then ``one, fully protect the members' rights to bear arms; and, two, to authorize the members to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.'' The Secretary would set those parameters.

This is my amendment. I believe that implementing a successful calendar insurgency strategy should not come at the cost of needlessly increasing American or coalition military casualties.

If we ask members of our Armed Forces to risk their lives to protect the home front, we must do all we can to help them with the material and the options and the ability to preserve their lives to fight on our behalf in hostile areas.

Please help me in arming our Armed Forces and also providing them with what I believe is the opportunity to adequately defend themselves in hostile theaters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me say that the United States Congress does set the policy for engaging in war and hostile actions. The Secretary of Defense has clearly given the authority here to provide, again, applicable provisions for how this would apply.

In closing, our troops, our servicemen and -women, should not be used at target practice in any hostile theater. They should be given the basic right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sharon K. Fawcett, the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, who is retiring after more than 34 years of outstanding public service to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

On February 28, 2011, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a joint hearing with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to highlight the importance of our presidential libraries to our nation's history. Following the hearing, I was pleased to host a luncheon and symposium to further discuss how we can ensure these national treasures can be preserved efficiently. Ms. Fawcett was instrumental in helping to make that day productive and successful and her insight at the symposium added a tremendous amount of knowledge to our discussion.

Her love and commitment to the Presidential Library system developed at an early age: she was born in Abilene, Kansas in a house that is now part of the campus of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library. In 1969, Ms. Fawcett started working at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library. After raising her young children, she returned to the National Archives in Washington, DC, to be Chief of the Reference Service Branch and later the Director of User Services. In these jobs she was responsible for the overall planning, development, direction, coordination, staffing and control of all research rooms in both the National Archives building in downtown Washington, DC, and at Archives II, NARA's state-of-the-art facility in College Park, Maryland. She returned to the Office of Presidential Libraries in 1997.

Ms. Fawcett has served as Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries for the past seven years and as Deputy Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries for seven years before that. In both roles she led the Library system in the development of award-winning educational programs, web sites, and exhibits. Under her leadership, the Libraries continued to open key Presidential materials--such as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon tape recordings--that help the public understand Presidents and Presidential decision-making. The multi- library conferences on such topics as Vietnam and the Nuclear Age have become a mainstay of C-SPAN programming. She also developed innovative initiatives to start staffing early for a Presidential Library, and to add additional staffing for the newer Presidential Record Act Libraries to try to meet the growing demand for their records. When she returned to Presidential Libraries in 1997, there were no women serving as library directors and almost no representation by minorities in library positions. She pursued a goal of building a more representational work force in the libraries, hiring a more diverse and representative workforce.

I congratulate Sharon K. Fawcett for her dedication in building strong and productive relationships with a variety of stakeholders that includes the White House, Congress, and Presidential Library foundations. I thank her for her service to the National Archives and to the Nation and I wish her a very happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 7, 2011 a Central Florida soldier lost his life in service to our nation from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire in Logar Province while assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, New York.

Specialist Buzinski joined the U.S. Army in August of 2006. Once he completed his training at Fort Benning, Georgia, he was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, then Fort Polk, Louisiana, where he deployed with his unit in October 2010 after previously serving in Iraq from September 2007 to November 2008.

Specialist Buzinski's impressive list of awards and decorations include the Bronze Star; Purple Heart; Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Valorous Unit Award; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal; Iraq Campaign Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; two Overseas Service Ribbons; NATO Medal; and Combat Infantryman Badge.

We shall never forget the ultimate sacrifice Specialist Buzinski has given for his country. His actions will serve as an everlasting reminder of the dedication and sacrifice the members of our nation's armed services make every day.

Specialist Buzinski is survived by his wife, two children, sister, mother and father.

The gentleman from Florida is correct, Madam Speaker, that this is about the rule, and the Rules Committee serves a very important purpose because we have 435 Members.

When we come to the floor, you just can't have chaos. There has to be some structure. All Members are afforded the opportunity to speak if we go through our regular business.

I won't at this time because I have very limited time and you have lots of time left, so I won't yield. And mine is limited.

And that's part of the process. Again, I was just yielded 5 minutes. So the Rules Committee sets the order of debate, how much time there shall be, how many amendments that are submitted.

Now, I've been here awhile. My family's been around Congress awhile. The last 4 years, for anyone to come and say that this is an unfair rule is so far from being accurate. Fifty amendments were offered. As the chair of the committee, I pay attention to the amendments. I went before the Rules Committee and asked that they carefully consider these; and what you want to do is make sure you don't have duplicate, you don't have nongermane, and be fair to Members so everybody gets a chance.

Some 48 were offered, 48 actually I understand. Thirty-nine were left after Members withdrew them. Thirty-three were accepted. That leaves six that they took out. If that's unfair in any way, it's hard to believe. So we have been fair. Mr. Webster's been fair, Mr. Dreier's been fair. I've never seen a fairer process. And in the last 4 years, when the place was run under basically martial law, you couldn't bring amendments up.

Then, how did we get ourselves in this situation? For 4 years they had complete control of this body. They could have passed anything. But what did they do, they passed things but they passed so much and spent so much that the American people threw them out. They had enough votes in the House to pass anything. They had enough votes in the Senate to pass anything, and the last 2 years they've had a President that would sign anything.

This aviation bill, 17 times they did an extension. I was the chairman in 2003 when we did a 4-year bill. We did a 4-year bill. It expired in 2007. My bill expired that I helped draft and author in 2003, expired after 4 years in 2007. Seventeen times they left the aviation policy, the funding formula, all the programs for safety and everything go on the most erratic basis you could imagine. Seventeen extensions, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. Go talk to the FAA administrator. And every time they did that, what they did to the disruption of one of the most important industries in the United States; 9.2 percent of our gross domestic product and activity is in the aviation industry, and they had 4 years to pass it. Unbelievable.

In less than 4 months, we've already worked with the United States Senate. They've passed the bill. We've passed it through two other committees, and now our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is bringing it up here, under a fair rule, one of the most open rules with open participation by all Members on every side. So don't talk to me about fairness in rules. This is fair.

Let's get it done and pass this rule, get the people's business done and get people working in the United States of America, instead of more hot air passing through this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 658 and include extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the legislation before us now, as the Chair has indicated, is the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011.

During the discussion on the rule which brought the measure to the floor, I had an opportunity to speak on the fairness of the rule, and again I'll cite: Having been here for a number of years and observed the process for three decades, I rarely find any time in which everyone has had a fair opportunity to offer amendments. Some 48 amendments were offered before the Rules Committee. Thirty-three were accepted. Nine were withdrawn. So there are only six that were not considered--some for germaneness reasons, some for being duplicative--and also, in fairness, for Members to have an opportunity to participate. So, again, I think the process that we have come forward with is very, very fair. The process has been fair and bipartisan in the committee.

In the last 4 years, as the ranking Republican, Republican leader of the committee, I can count on probably less than three fingers the number of votes that we had over the 4 years. We had many more votes than that in the committee. It was an open process and people had the opportunity to participate.

I also spoke in the rule of how we got ourselves in this predicament. I had

the honor and privilege of being the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee after the beginning of 9/11 and through the fateful time of 9/11 for 6 years. In 2003, we passed the last authorization for FAA. Now, in order to operate the Federal Government and each of its agencies and activities, the Congress must authorize the programs, the policies, the agencies, the funding formulas, and the projects that are eligible for Federal participation.

As I also stated, the other side of the aisle for 4 years had huge majorities, could pass anything that they wanted to. Very large majority in the House, large majority in the Senate. And the last 2 years, indeed, they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. They could pass anything they wanted.

In 2007, the bill that I helped author, a 4-year authorization, expired. They did 17 extensions in 4 years. It's no wonder people don't have jobs. It's no wonder that people in the aviation industry don't know which way the Federal Government is coming or going. It's no wonder that you have some disarray in one of our most important agencies, the FAA. They had 4 years; we've had less than 4 months. We're bringing the bill out.

We've had a fair process in the committee, and we've had opportunity for people to offer amendments and will spend most of today and maybe part of tomorrow going through those amendments in, I think, an adequate time for debate. The bill does make some reductions in spending and it does take us back to the 2008 level of spending.

Now, the first thing you will hear from the other side is, Oh, the Republicans are cutting and slashing important FAA programs and safety and security and everything under the sun will be at risk. I can tell you that that's not the case. I can tell you that you can do more with less, and we can prioritize. In fact, in this bill, to make certain that safety is our primary concern--and it must be our primary concern--we have put specific provisions in here that if there are cuts or reductions--and heaven knows the FAA and the Department of Transportation certainly can have reductions in bureaucratic staffing. My dad used to say when he was alive, ``Son, it's not how much you spend; it's how you spend it.'' And it's just like that with personnel.

People say, well, we're not going to have enough air traffic controllers. We just had the incident out at Reagan. We had an air traffic controller with some 20 years' experience, 17 years at DCA, came to work I guess at 10 o'clock. There was somebody there until almost 10:30. So I understand he was there an hour and 28 minutes and either fell asleep or wasn't doing his duty. So, in Washington, what do they do? We've got to double up. We've got to have more employees.

Listen to this statistic. Since before 2001, we have a 21 percent decrease. If we go to 2001 to today, we have a 21 percent decrease in air traffic movements. Why? Because the industry has consolidated. We don't have as many flights. The economy is down. At the same time, we have an increase in 20 percent of staffing. If you look at airports around the country, you will see some with huge reductions in air traffic and still the same number of air traffic controllers. In this bill, we give some flexibility so you can hopefully move people around.

Now, I know there are labor agreements and it's hard to get people to move, and some people might not like the warm climes and beauty of Florida where the population has expanded--and Arizona and wherever else we need them--but, for heaven's sake, do we need to double up? Do we need to double up when there's no air traffic at these airports between midnight and 5 a.m.? That's the Washington big spending, big government. Let's add more.

So I can tell you that there's plenty of room for doing things responsibly, doing things with safety in mind. Now let's try a new approach with the best interests of the taxpayer.

They've spent some $5.3 billion in about 24 months more than we take in. We're on the verge of having our financial security of this Nation at risk and also threatening even the defense security of this Nation.

Again, 17 times they did these little hiccup extensions, costing millions of dollars. Just ask the FAA administrator; the recalculation, all the things that had to be done; the inability to move forward with safety programs, for that matter.

So I just want to make the point that we can accomplish what we've set out: a reduction in spending and, actually, better performance and better safety. I could give more examples. I don't have a lot of time.

We used to chase developmental programs, and the government would try to develop technology for air traffic control, and they take forever. And the private sector would develop technologies. They do it sooner, faster, better, with more capability, while we're still spending billions of dollars recklessly. And we reduced, actually, the amount of money in those developmental programs, and we actually have put out there the technology faster, better. So there are many areas, and I can't spend all my time talking about them.

This is a job creation bill. 9.2 percent of the gross domestic activity in this Nation depends on this industry. We count on this. As I said, in less than 4 months, the other body, the Senate, has already passed the bill. We're ready to go to conference. We've asked for one extension to accomplish this. And this bill has excellent provisions.

Finally, you will hear them moan and groan about some labor provision that someone described that we're taking away democratic rights and all of this for union members. It couldn't be further from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for labor where we've always had a majority of those who were affected have to vote in a union. Now they want to change it to whoever shows up. They have multiple elections. And that's what they're asking for.

The little caveat here--and I hope everyone is listening, Madam Chair. What they didn't do is to decertify to get out of the union. They left the old rule in place. There has to be a majority of everyone who's affected.

They'll tell you that they didn't let women vote and all this a long time ago, try to mix up the topic at hand and confuse people, but you can't think of a more unfair rule than a packed National Mediation Board has enacted. Unfair, easy to enter in, cut the provisions for entering in, and then put a barrier up to get out.

Again, I think this is an excellent program. It gives us opportunities to look at contract towers and then air traffic control, NextGen, the next generation of air traffic control. We can do better. We can get technology in place. We'll probably have to use fewer people. And we'll always know where the planes are if we can move this legislation forward that, again, has been on the shelf for some 4 years.

There are excellent provisions in this legislation. I feel confident that it deserves the support of the House, and we'll have fair and open debate on amendments.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and

Reform Act of 2011.

H.R. 658 was favorably reported by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure on March 10, 2011 and

sequentially referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring

this legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and, accordingly, I will waive further

consideration of this bill in Committee. This, of course,

being conditional on our mutual understanding that Title X of

the legislation reported by your Committee will be removed

from the legislation and provisions regarding research and

development activities at the Federal Aviation Administration

developed by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

will be included in the legislation considered on the Floor.

However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should

not be construed as waiving, reducing or affecting the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology.

Further, I request your support in the appointment of

conferees from the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology during any House-Senate conference convened on

this, or any similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of

this letter and your response be placed in the Congressional

Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman.

Reminding everyone that we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Madam Chair, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and allow him to control it for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chair of the Highways Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Madam Chairman, I understand that the Ways and Means Committee is in markup. I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim their time, I believe that is 5 minutes on our side, that the Transportation and Infrastructure majority be permitted to claim that time.

Madam Chairman, I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), one of the senior members of the T&I Committee and a leader on the Judiciary Committee.

Might I inquire as to how much time remains?

I would like to reserve my time that I acquired on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee to close and, I believe, if it's appropriate, have the Science Committee, which I think is yielded 5 minutes on each side, go forward prior to my close.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, as we close debate on the long overdue FAA reauthorization, first I have to thank my copartner in this, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). He is a gentleman. It is great to work with him. I have to thank also Mr. Petri, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, he and Mr. Costello, two gentlemen who have worked hard to bring the bill to this point. It has been a struggle for 4 years, and now, to get here. But I am pleased that we are at this point. There are differences of opinion about the bill.

I have to take a moment to thank staff on both sides. They are great, and have been working together to get us to this point. And we will debate the amendments and the differences, and then we will hopefully pass this and get people working and get our aviation policies secure for the Nation.

I have to thank Mr. Hall, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, for his provisions to make certain that research in aviation is done. Mr. Camp brought a proposal here from Ways and Means that doesn't raise taxes, that doesn't increase fees. There are no passenger facility increases. So those kinds of things.

We brought a bill. It does have $59 billion over 4 years--this isn't small potatoes--and it can, if properly expended and wisely applied, can do well for the Nation, ensuring safety in programs that are so important and moving jobs that are so critical. 9.3 percent of our economy depends on this legislation.

The colloquy between Mr. Shuster and the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) on Essential Air Service, I understand their concerns and their great advocacy for their constituents and making certain that service is there. We do have a sunset provision. We will work with them and we will do our best. But I agreed to work with them, and I reconfirm that here.

Finally, letters of support. You heard the other side state that nobody supports this. I have a list of 45 major associations, every major organization in the aviation industry, and I will submit that for the record. On the question of AIA support, I have a letter of support from Marion Blakey, showing their support of this legislation.

In conclusion, we are doing here something that needs to be done. This is very important. It has been left aside. Seventeen extensions. When the other side, of course, had huge majorities, they could have done this almost by unanimous consent with the President.

Now, the President threatened to veto this. I am not going to say, ``Make my day,'' but I want to say that this is a fair provision, fair to everyone in labor, fair to everyone who wants to join a labor union, to keep 70 years of law that has been on the books and not change it because you have jerry-rigged the membership of the National Mediation Board. So let's be fair, fair going in and fair coming out. This provision that we have in the bill creates fairness.

Broad Support for H.R. 658--FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA); Air Transport Association

(ATA); Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); International

Association of Fire Chiefs; Air Medical Operators Association

(AMOA); Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS);

Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA); U.S. Chamber

of Commerce; Cargo Airline Association (CAA); National

Business Aviation Association (NBAA); National Air Transport

Association (NATA); National Air Carrier Association (NACA);

Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

(AUVSI); Alliance for Worker Freedom; AdvaMed; Airforwarders

Association; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers;

AT&T; Boston Scientific; Consumer Electronics Association.;

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition; CTIA--The Wireless

Association.

Dangerous Goods Advisory Council; DHL; Express Association

of America; FedEx Corporation; Garmin; Hewlett-Packard;

International Air Transport Association (IATA); Information

Technology Industry Council; Johnson Controls; Motorola

Mobility; Motorola Solutions; National Association of

Manufacturers; National Electrical Manufacturers Association;

National Retail Federation; Power Tool Institute; PRBA--The

Rechargeable Battery Association; Retail Industry Leaders

Association; Samsung SDI; Security Industry Association;

Sony; UPS; The International Air Cargo Association.

Aerospace Industries Association,

Arlington, VA, February 16, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives.

Chairman Mica, and Ranking Member Rahall; I write today to

express the Aerospace Industries Association's (AIA) support

for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization

and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 658), as introduced by the House

Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee

February 11, 2011.

During my February 9 testimony, I outlined a number of

initiatives the FAA may undertake to reduce duplicative

efforts, measure the effectiveness of existing processes, and

capitalize on the experience and efficiency of the private

sector. These efficiencies are paramount to ensuring the

FAA's ability to maintain the highest level of safety,

provide oversight responsibilities without delaying

manufacturers' ability to compete internationally, and

aggressively advance the Next Generation Air Transportation

System (NextGen).

AIA is pleased with the Committee's decision to address key

policies such as environmental streamlining, third party

performance based navigation procedure design, and the

establishment of NextGen performance metrics. Further, the

Committee's acknowledgement of the benefits of bilateral

aviation safety agreements and a risk based inspection regime

when applied to repair station oversight cannot be

overstated. These carefully negotiated agreements increase

FAA's efficiency, enhance FAA's international safety

oversight and help protect U.S. jobs.

FAA is the global gold standard for aviation safety and

standards. U.S. civil aviation manufacturers are the world

leaders in advanced aerospace technology, innovative

satellite-based procedures and airspace design. The policies

outlined in H.R. 658 permit the FAA to not only pursue

efficiencies for the flying public but also protect the

investment of the American taxpayer.

If AIA can provide any technical assistance or answer any

questions, please do not hesitate to call me directly.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The manager's amendment is pretty simple. First of all, we have tried to accommodate as many Members as we could with their requests and include on both sides of the aisle provisions that they requested that weren't in the original submission.

Additionally, the manager's amendment makes technical corrections to provisions in the underlying bill, including those related to unmanned aircraft systems, ADS-B readiness verification, flight attendant fatigue, FAA access to criminal records databases, and also, as Mr. Coble said, who was with us earlier, just a small accommodation for another Member who wanted musical instruments, some provisions again in the bill. So we have tried to accommodate many of the Members who have had these questions.

The manager's amendment also contains provisions regarding public- private partnerships to advance NextGen. If the government does it, it usually doesn't get done. If we have public-private partnerships and closely monitor that, we can have great success, reduce costs, and bring technology online that makes it even safer for people to fly at lower costs and with less personnel.

We have protections for voluntary safety data submissions. We also have a provision that is very important for the European Union Emissions Trading scheme. This is very important, because they are trying to close us down or tax us as we enter some of their airspace.

We have agreements at the airport for new revenue liability protections for volunteer pilot organizations, for public benefit flights, and also for privacy protections for airspace users, and also, finally, the safe shipment of lithium batteries.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in

preparing the Manager's amendment to H.R. 658, the ``FAA

Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011.'' As you know, the

amendment includes provisions related to the Freedom of

Information Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be

considered in a conference with the Senate. Finally, I

request that you include this letter and your response in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

To close on the manager's amendment which I have offered today, first of all, let me just say that the two objections that have been raised again by the minority--and I appreciate their concerns--as to the safety reporting, which we put in some years ago, has actually resulted in probably the safest system that we've had in the world and the safest safety record in history. If you stop and think about it--I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee--the last large commercial aircraft that we had that went down, unfortunately, was near Veterans Day of 2001, after 9/11.

Safety reporting is so important and is done on a voluntary basis, and it's so important that the people who collect this data are not held liable. They're collecting the data that benefits us to make this safe. This has worked. It's kept us safe. And we want to ensure, again, that this continues. Some will say we had commuter. Yes, we did have commuter. We also passed commuter safety legislation to deal with problems we had there. So we have a safe system. We don't want to stop that. We don't want the recording of the data to stop or those held liable that are collecting the data. That's the first point.

The second point: lithium batteries. This is a lithium battery. This has a lithium battery. This is a pacemaker. This keeps your heart going. This has a lithium battery. Laptops have lithium batteries. Almost everything has lithium batteries. Leave it to the DOT to try to put in place rules that would create stopping granny and grandpa and others that need this pacemaker from getting it. If we didn't have this provision in here, it would be a $1.1 billion impact on industry. We'd reroute the shipment of this stuff through other countries to avoid paying and going through the onerous regulations that our government would create.

Countless consumers would be forced to pay more because of silly regulations that don't make any sense. A severe supply chain issue and limitations on supply would be imposed. We would have delays in shipping lifesaving equipment. This little thing here that saves hearts, that's what they want to mess up. One more Federal regulation to delay shipping. Even our troops, who rely on these lithium batteries--their receiving them would be put at risk, the way DOT is doing.

This is a good provision. It needs to be in the bill. We've got to keep some of the regulation, those that put us out of business, put jobs overseas and put people at risk, out of our way.

I urge the House to pass the manager's amendment with these sound provisions that will make a big difference.

Alliance for Worker Freedom,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Alliance for Worker

Freedom (AWF), an organization established in 2003 to combat

anti-worker legislation and promote free and open labor

markets, I urge you to support the Title IX provision in the

FAA Reauthorization bill which repeals last year's the

unprecedented National Mediation Board (NMB) voting rule

change.

I write this letter in anticipation of an amendment which

looks to strip this essential provision from FAA

Reauthorization.

Last year, the National Mediation Board reversed 75 years

worth of precedent and numerous Supreme Court rulings,

implementing elections rules whereby a majority of voters in

a union election are now able to determine whether a

collective bargaining unit has been formed. Prior to this

ruling, a majority of a workforce was required to certify a

union--a long held and well understood practice. The so-

called ``minority rule'' ruling reveals a contempt for

workers' preferences, as well as a clear bias towards union

interests.

The three member NMB is comprised of two former union

officials, both President Obama appointees, giving them a

stranglehold over the agency's rulemaking process. It is

essential that this obscure agency, beholden to union

interests, have its power checked via Congressional action.

Title IX of the FAA Reauthorization legislation addresses

the inappropriateness of this administratively imposed rule

which aims to facilitate unionization at the expense of

workers' preference. Union complaints that it has become too

difficult to unionize workers, thus necessitating the NMB's

change, are largely unfounded: majority rule has been used in

more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65%

of the time.

Title IX looks to reinstate longstanding union election

rules which require a majority of the workplace's consent to

certify a union.

It is for these reasons that I hope you will help ensure

that Title IX remains in the final version of the FAA

Reauthorization legislation and oppose any amendments that

look to remove this provision.

Sincerely,

Christopher Prandoni,

Executive Director.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Although I claim time in opposition, I am going to speak in support of this amendment.

I have the greatest respect for the delegate Congressman from Puerto Rico, also the highest esteem for Governor Fortuno, former delegate representative to this body, two great young leaders, and he's here today trying to ensure that Puerto Rico is treated like any other airport in the United States in terms of airport improvement programs. And I think his amendment clarifies that Puerto Rico also remains eligible for grants from the AIP discretionary fund.

I also know Mr. Pierluisi is willing to work with me on his other amendment, which deals with essential air service. I had offered to work with other Members, and I will state for the record that I will work with him, and I am hoping that if he offers it, he'll withdraw it because I'm going to support this amendment. I think he has a good amendment here, and I would like to work with him on his other provision, but I would hope that he would work with us in that regard.

So this amendment simply provides clear direction to the FAA that Puerto Rico Airport should be treated equitably, and I will support this amendment at this time and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time. Maybe the gentleman has a little response to my support for his amendment.

I do not. But I was hoping to hear that the gentleman from Puerto Rico would be willing to work with me on his other amendment. And I'm sure he will. But I still will support his amendment because I'm that kind of a guy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I actually will support the amendment, but I wanted to give the gentlelady an additional minute to conclude if she had any remarks. As I said, we're very willing to work with her on her next amendment, and hope she would consider working with us. We will support this amendment.

I would like to yield, if I may, Mr. Chairman, as much time as she needs to finish her statement.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to allow them to submit their remarks. We are taking the amendment, and I know she is going to work with us.

I would also be pleased to yield to our colleague from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these letters in support of the bill for the record, and unless the gentlelady needs more time, I am prepared to support this amendment that is pending.

Air Transport Association,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: On behalf of the Air Transport

Association, I am writing to thank you for your leadership

and applaud your success as Chairman, House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee, in successfully obtaining the

full Committee's approval of the Federal Aviation

Administration Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R.

658). After 17 short-term extensions over many years, the

vote can only be attributed to your extraordinary leadership,

tenacious effort and decisive chairmanship.

America's airline industry knows how important this bill is

to the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation.

Certainly, H.R. 658 will move NextGen and other important

programs forward at this crucial time, when the airline

industry is still rebounding from this nation's devastating

economic recession.

Finally, the Air Transport Association and our airline

members stand ready to assist you and your very capable staff

as you prepare to conference with the Senate. Please do not

hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional support.

Sincerely,

Nicholas E. Calio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

He has worked with the committee in drafting this amendment, done an excellent job, and we also have the support of FAA on this amendment.

I ask everyone to join in passage of this well-crafted amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey, and I understand his predicament. He has been one of the strongest advocates for his district on some of the potential problems that might arise from airspace redesign. I had the opportunity to travel to the gentleman's district to meet with his constituents. We have raised great concerns about the New York airspace redesign.

Now, this does put in place another study of the airspace redesign, and, unfortunately, it delays the implementation of airspace redesign in the Northeast corridor, in that New York airspace, until that's complete. So that is why I have to oppose this.

I will work with the gentleman in trying to make certain that FAA treats them fairly and that there are hearings. We have had 120 hearings. I have been in every jurisdiction from Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, all the way up into Connecticut, which is part of the New York airspace, in hearings and public meetings. There have been over 120 FAA meetings. This has been drug through the courts. There were suits, and they were all consolidated. The issues, again, were resolved, and FAA should go forward with airspace redesign and continue to address the concerns of the gentleman.

Why is this important to everyone here? Because more than 70 percent of the chronically delayed flights around the United States start in the New York airspace. That means when New York goes down, the whole country starts going down.

Now, you have got to understand that this battle has been going on for nearly two decades, in and out of court, and fights and everything for the redesign. So what we're left with is a corridor for airspace that is sort of like having U.S. 1 going into New York City 20 or 30 years ago and not expanding or revising the capacity. So that's why we have this situation. That's why I strongly urge not the adoption of this.

I am willing to work with the gentlemen to try to, again, make certain that their concerns are taken into consideration. We do have quieter aircraft. I don't want him, his constituents, or any of the others in the New York airspace to suffer. But this has to come to a conclusion.

Again, it affects everyone in the House of Representatives because more than 70 percent of our chronically delayed flights start in this area, and we have not been able to resolve this question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Again, I have to say that I have the greatest respect for the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Andrews, and the gentleman from New York. They all do have interests here, and they are trying to protect them. They are concerned about noise with the New York airspace redesign. But, again, this has been going on for two decades.

We have a very narrow corridor. We do need to redesign it. We have safety questions now. We have chronic delays, and 70 percent of them emanate from New York. They start in the New York airspace, and then they ripple across the country. So 70 percent of the Members are impacted by this particular provision.

I appreciate their concern in asking for an additional study, but what they do in the provisions they have offered is delay implementation. We have just finished numerous court cases, which were consolidated, which ruled against those in question. I know it's difficult, but we've got to get this done.

Again, I so much appreciate their looking out for their constituents, stating their concern and expressing in every way possible. I will continue to work with them and make certain that there is fairness to the implementation and whatever they adopt does not disturb or unduly cause distress for their constituents. That's all I can do. But I do have to oppose this amendment in the interest of the committee, the country, and the other Members.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the intent of the gentleman who is the distinguished ranking member, former chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, but I think that the

crafting of this amendment is somewhat flawed in that he does now require FAA to take their limited resources. FAA is not a security agency. It's an aviation agency. And again, we have a jurisdictional question here. We can't put in provisions that require TSA to do certain things, but that is their responsibility.

I understand this is also already done where the repair station is at the airport. TSA is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security. But it, appropriately, is in their realm, not FAA. And we do get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies that really this is not their responsibility, their charter under Congress.

Again, I think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. So with that, I have to oppose the amendment as crafted. I'd be willing to work with him. There is a possibility of working with him, I think, and getting it right.

I think his intention is good, but the assignment is misplaced, and it would cause more problems the way it's crafted than benefit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I believe the gentleman's intention is good. The problem I have is with the crafting of the amendment. Now, heaven knows that there's probably been no one that's more critical of TSA. I helped create it along, actually, with Mr. DeFazio back in 2001. They have a lot of important responsibilities. One of them is clearly defined as aviation security, and it should be in repair stations.

Quite frankly, I am concerned about beefing up some of that, getting some of the 3,700 bureaucrats that work and earn on average $105,000, just within miles of here, relocated to where they can do their security function at a place that does pose risk, and that's some of these foreign locations. But this doesn't do the job. It complicates the assignment we have for FAA. And TSA is in a rulemaking process to address this responsibility, which is appropriately located within the purview of, and again, the jurisdiction of TSA. So I, again, oppose the opposition, will work with the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition.

Again, I think the gentlelady's intentions are honorable, and I know she is trying to make certain that we are safe and secure. However, the way the amendment is crafted with actually requiring three air traffic controllers all the time in the top 20 as far as traffic, first of all, I would say it doesn't achieve her goals.

First of all, all of those, we have a list of them, have at least two air traffic controllers. Some of them have very few flights. This doesn't answer the problem that they had at Ronald Reagan Airport. There was a period of time when they have no traffic at many of these airports, so what she would be doing the way this is crafted is requiring at least three all the time, when we have two already, and requiring an additional one.

These are not cheap, easy-to-come-by air traffic controllers. They earn, on average, $163,000. Where I need to put them is where I have the air traffic. We always are required by labor organizations and by FAA to staff to traffic.

So her amendment, while maybe well-intended, it actually achieves the opposite. All of these, every one that she mentioned, has at least two, and then I would be adding more people when they have no traffic as opposed to putting them where I need them where they have traffic.

I understand she is going to withdraw the amendment. I would be glad to work with her. We do have provisions in here that will help us, I think, with some of the personnel movement and questions of professionalism and competency and training that will address some of the shortfalls we have seen from a limited number of FAA air traffic controllers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to control the time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in representing so well the people of Puerto Rico. Also, again, Governor Fortuno, who preceded the current delegate. I talked to them about this situation, and they do indeed have an essential air problem. He cited Vieques and Culebra, for example, and I know even during the recent season they had ferry boat interruption service. There's no other way to get back and forth. And this does constitute Essential Air Service.

As I have said to the gentlewoman and the gentleman from North and South Dakota and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and now to the gentleman with Puerto Rico, I commit to work with them and will try to address their concerns. He has my commitment in that regard.

I understand he's going to withdraw his amendment, and I'm grateful for his cooperation and pledge to work with him.

I yield back the balance my time.

Again, I do have concerns and share the concerns of Mr. Costello. This is a hard-fought provision.

I will guarantee the gentleman that I am aware of his concerns. I will work with him as the bill proceeds hopefully through the conference process. And I think you're doing an outstanding job in representing the constituencies who are affected who want those longer- distance services to come into our Nation's Capital.

Again, he has my strong commitment. I am hoping that he would withdraw the amendment at this time. I pledge to work with him, and I know Mr. Costello will also work with the gentleman in that regard.

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

First of all, I greatly respect the gentleman's intent. I strongly favor the disclosure of fees by airlines. I think that fees ought to be refunded when bags arrive late, damaged, or just lost.

However, as drafted, the amendment goes far beyond that and allows, again, some unfairness to contractual agreements, first of all, with global distribution systems and ticket agents. This requirement tips the scales in favor of global distribution systems and their business relationships with airlines, and global distribution systems are not charitable organizations. They're owned by private equity firms, hedge funds, and exist to make money in the travel industry, and we would tip the balance in this requirement for them.

I favor part of what the gentleman's trying to do, but as crafted, I have to oppose the amendment because of that provision.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to submit this letter of support for the Record.

Association of Air Medical

Services,

Alexandria, VA, March 25, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thomas Petri,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jerry Costello,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, Chairman Petri,

Ranking Member Costello: The Association of Air Medical

Services (AAMS) greatly appreciates your efforts to enact an

overdue, long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA). We are also appreciative of your

comprehensive efforts to address the safety concerns of the

air medical industry within the reauthorization legislation.

Like others in the air medical industry, AAMS is committed

to efforts to improve the safety infrastructure for air

medical providers, crews, and the patients they serve. Your

bill contains a number of provisions that address rapidly-

emerging technology and other practices that will surely

benefit the industry's efforts for increased safety.

As you know, the FAA has been operating without a long-term

authorization since 2007. The uncertainty of operating

without a long-term authorization makes it difficult for the

FAA to move forward with badly needed investments to improve

the aviation infrastructure, and in particular the low-

altitude infrastructure. As such, it is critical the FAA

reauthorization process is completed as quickly as possible.

AAMS urges the House to act on FAA reauthorization as soon as

possible so that the process can expeditiously move toward

completion and bring long-needed stability to FAA operations.

Again, thank you for your efforts on this important issue.

As always, please do not hesitate to call upon AAMS if we can

be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Daniel G. Hankins, MD,

President.

Dawn Mancuso,

Executive Director/CEO.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

Both the gentleman from Tennessee and the distinguished gentleman from Missouri have raised some excellent points about excessive fees that some of the unsuspecting renters are forced to pay sometimes.

When you rent a car, sometimes the fees look like more than the car rental; but many of the communities and airports are committed to building facilities. They make those decisions through elected local and State bodies, and we have to recognize some of their independence.

I appreciate the goal of the gentleman on this amendment. I believe he is going to withdraw it, but I do pledge to work with him to see how we can put in some limitations in the future that are reasonable and not impair the proper development and also take the burden off taxpayers for improvement that someone who comes in and rents a car experiences. A lot of local taxpayers end up footing some of the bill for the conveniences that are accorded some of these visitors and car renters. So we need to seek a proper balance, and I pledge to work with the gentlemen in that regard, both Mr. Graves and Mr. Cohen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Unfortunately, I have to strongly disagree with my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Illinois, on this amendment.

What's proposed as fairness is really probably the height of unfairness. We've had 75 years of rule and law in which to organize. In the transportation sector, you had to have a majority of all of the individuals that worked there, all the people that would be potential members, and a majority of those folks would have to vote in the union, and I have no problem with union representation. The President packed the board of the National Mediation Board, and on a 2-1 vote, they changed 75 years of ruling.

Now, what's particularly unfair, and the dirty little secret in all this is, they didn't change it to decertify to shed the union. They left it so you still have to have all majority plus one of all of the members. So this is not fair by any means. We should allow unionization. We should allow votes of it; but for those again who are affected who have to pay the dues, who have to abide by the union rules and regulations that they set, it's not fair.

So I wish this was crafted in a different way for fairness, but it's not. So, again, they upset 75 years in which it worked very well. In fact, they told me today that under the 75 years, you had a larger number than most recent votes under this rule. I think it's 50 percent to 70 percent, something like that. So, if you really want to favor unionization in a fair way, let's have it the way it worked for many years and oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

In closing, the President has threatened to veto this legislation because of the provision that we have. I can see why, because he packed the board. He packed the board. And on a 2-1 vote they overwrote a provision that was put in by FDR, confirmed by Truman and Carter and others. And then we heard that this is an assault on democracy. Well, folks, have you ever seen one-way democracy so the vote going in is fixed, but the vote going out is left the same? Please, folks, this is not the case. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first I have no objection to the amendment. And the sense of Congress the gentleman from California offers that FAA should enter into discussions with the Santa Monica Airport for the purpose of runway safety is justified. This is a safety issue. It's important that we address it. And from our side, I would support it.

If the gentleman will yield, I will only agree to this amendment if Mr. Graves agrees that this is his last amendment on this legislation. I know he is the chairman of the Small

Business Committee. I know he has been an active member on the Transportation Committee. I know he is a pilot. But no one should be allowed as many amendments as he has had, and unless he agrees this is absolutely his last amendment, I would have to oppose it.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I have done my best to meet with some of the affected parties here. And I have the greatest respect for those who have brought this proposal forward. I talked to Mr. Schiff,

Mr. Berman, and others. They have a good intention. They want to protect the airports and the constituents that they represent. However, what they propose is--again, I had to look at this very carefully to see the consequences of what they propose and how it would affect all of us.

Prior to 1990--I think that's where he wants to take us back to--we didn't have a regulation for a standard airport noise control Federal law. Congress enacted a law. And they did this because we get into the situation that any airport could impose various flight restrictions. And what you do is start closing down a national system because, again, you have no consistent regulation. And we set up a procedure in that law.

Now, it is true that Bob Hope had applied, spent money, and then was denied. Van Nuys has never applied. And Bob Hope can go back and apply. If we open this up and we start taking airport by airport and granting certain levels of activity in time, we start destroying a national aviation system. So that's why we put the Act in place. It has a manner in which to proceed.

I'm glad this came up because maybe it is an Act that we need to look at. I don't want communities to have to spend a great deal of money to go through this process or spend a great deal of time. Maybe we need to look at amending the Airport Noise Control Act of 1990 to be fair to communities. But I'm telling you, if we open this door, then we have a problem.

Again, Van Nuys has never even sought the remedy. So to come to Congress and ask for this exemption at this point on behalf of the entire aviation system--and my responsibility is to, again, everyone who contributes to our national aviation system--I can't concur with, and I have to oppose this amendment at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I try to work with Members that have problems. Unfortunately, again, in analyzing this--I do have the stewardship of the country at stake and our national aviation system. And this amendment, unfortunately, would set a precedent that would encourage other localities to seek congressional intervention to override FAA decisions or to avoid the agency review process altogether.

We could be here all the time doing this. The results would be a patchwork quilt of local regulations that would work against the maintenance of a national air transportation system. We can start taking it apart piece by piece. And that was exactly the concerns that led to the passage of the law in 1990.

Now, if it needs amending, I will work with them. I understand their concerns and others that might have a similar problem. And it's somewhat educational too to learn about the $9 million that they had to spend to go through this process and then have it denied.

But I can't in good faith, and, again, having a responsibility to the Nation and its aviation system, support this amendment at this time. I have to oppose it because, again, the patchwork, the quilt work, and the deluge that we would get in our committee. So, again, I'm having concerns, but I still remain in opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

While I do want to, first of all, thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for bringing this amendment forward, our committee did have an amendment which we included, a provision for the gentleman from Tennessee, who she has been working with, Mr. Cohen. I think they have an excellent proposal for looking at a broader scope of how aviation should work as an intermodal entity and on a larger basis. I do have concerns about the way the language is directing certain demonstration projects and FAA funding.

So we are willing to work with, again, the gentlelady who brings this amendment forward with Mr. Cohen, the gentleman from Tennessee. We did put the placeholder provision in and supportive language of this type of proposal. Again, I would have to reluctantly oppose it, but I offer to support, and if the gentlelady is willing to withdraw the amendment, she would have that commitment from me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, yielding myself time, I would openly and very actively pursue the goal that the gentlelady has set here and also the gentleman from Tennessee who provided the underlying provision that we have in the bill that will be passed. And I know that her goal is development to provide efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable intermodal connectivity to a defined region, and I share that goal. So I will work with her.

Also, in closing, since this is the last amendment--I think Mr. Crowley does not intend to appear--I do want to thank the gentlelady. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Rahall. I don't see Mr. Costello. I want to thank Chairman Petri and the staff who have worked through this. There were some disagreements on some of these issues; but we have Members that are willing to, again, come forward, state their positions. The gentlelady from Wisconsin has done that and advocated her particular provision and amendment; but I think that in all it's been a good, healthy debate and exchange, an opportunity to hear many, many amendments throughout the day.

And I would encourage again working with those who have had proposals that may not have gotten in the bill that we would work on in conference; and while we do have some disagreements, I think we've done probably as good a job as we can.

I'd like to yield a moment, if I may, to Mr. Rahall my ranking member, Democrat leader of the committee.

Again, I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady. I yield back the balance of my time, both on this amendment and hopefully on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 1, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an extension of what would be known as the ``aviation bill.'' I come before the House asking for one extension under the leadership of the new majority in Congress. I also come to the floor to explain the history of how we got here today with 17 extensions.

In 2001, I had the honor and privilege of being named the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee. Not knowing what the future would hold, of course, all of our lives changed on September 11, 2001, and mine did, too.

In 2003, we passed a 4-year authorization: The Federal Government must provide authorization and set the policy for the operation of our Nation's aviation system and for the FAA, which is the primary and lead agency. The bill that we passed in 2003 sets forth the policy and the funding for all the projects and everything eligible for Federal participation. It authorizes all the programs. When we did that again in 2003, we did a 4-year bill.

In 2007, the bill that I helped author and that we brought before the Congress--again after the fateful days of 2001, after the tragedy, and again after the difficulty the aviation industry saw from 2001 to 2003--the bill that expired in 2007, the 4-year bill, was extended some 17 times. That is shameful and irresponsible that we find ourselves in a situation where we haven't passed policy.

Now, why is this important?

Most of the emphasis in this Congress should be on getting people back to work. If we have people working, most of our problems are solved. The States would have revenue, and the Federal Government would have revenue. Yet it's absolutely amazing, when you have the aviation industry, which accounts for 9.2 percent of our gross domestic product and activity in the United States--9.2 percent--that the Federal Government and Congress did not have in place a long-term policy and blueprint, which is set forth in that authorization legislation. So 17 times we've come to the floor, and there have been these short-term extensions of the bill that we passed originally in 2003 and that expired in 2007. That's the situation we find ourselves in.

Now, several weeks ago, we did pass in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a long-term 4-year bill. The Senate has acted, the other body, and they've passed a bill. If it had been just our committee, we probably could have had the bill up a little bit quicker, but we do rely on several other committees to add input into this process. We have the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which just before we left last week completed their portion of the bill. We have the Ways and Means Committee, which also has part of the financial responsibility, the Ways and Means' responsibility, in the legislation for the extension, and they finished their work.

We do need a little bit more time to come to conference, and I pledge an open conference. In the past, legislation has been decided behind closed doors. I hope this to be an open process. This extension will run us through May 31, I believe, of this year, the end of May, and it is my hope that the first bill that we can get done will be done with this one extension for, again, authorizing all of our aviation programs for the Nation.

So that's the situation we find ourselves in. We need to pass this legislation because the current 17th extension expires at the end of this week, and we must have this in place to make certain that we can even function in any manner, even though we don't have all the details of new legislation in place, which I pledge to do in the next 60 days.

With that explanation, I would like to thank the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman and our leader on aviation issues, Mr. Petri.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

H.R. 658. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to

authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation

Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to

streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and

improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable

funding for the national aviation system, and for other

purposes; with an amendment; referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary for a period ending not later than March 23, 2011,

for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(1), rule X.

Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

H.R. 658. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to

authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation

Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to

streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and

improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable

funding for the national aviation system, and for other

purposes; with an amendment; referred to the Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology for a period ending not later

than March 23, 2011, for consideration of such provisions of

the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of

that committee pursuant to clause 1(p), rule X.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 128, I call up the bill (H.R. 662) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 662.

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

I come to the floor today to pass the extension of our major surface transportation legislation, that's H.R. 662.

I would like to first lead off by informing Members and the Speaker that this extension is a spending freeze at 2010 levels through September 30.

We find ourself in a situation where the major transportation legislation that authorizes all of the policies, the various projects, all the funding levels and all of the activities that are so important to job creation, to building the Nation's infrastructure, that legislation expired September 30, 2009.

In the past Congress, since that time, we have passed a number of short-term extensions. We are now on the sixth extension of that legislation.

What happens when the Congress does this is we end up sending the worst message and the worst policy possible across the Nation, across the land, to our States and our localities that are trying to build the Nation's infrastructure and trying to determine what Federal policy, what their partnership and funding relationship will be with the Federal Government.

Right now, in a time in which across this Nation we are experiencing some of the worst unemployment, in my district I have some areas with 17 percent unemployment. And where is that unemployment? That's in the construction industry.

So it's critical that we pass an extension of the current legislation and extension that we are on, the sixth extension that we are on, and we do that before Friday. Friday is when the current extension expires.

Again, this is important for jobs. Why? Our State transportation departments have only been able to do small

projects. Now, they have done some sidewalks, and they have done some repaving, and they have done some minor construction projects. But because they don't have a dependable Federal partner and the hiccup manner in which we have provided policy judgment funding direction as far as our Federal law for major transportation projects, because it's been done in such a helter-skelter fashion, people are not employed. Projects do not move forward. This is the worst time that this could happen. I am determined that that won't happen again.

Now, I might like to do a short-term extension, and some people have said we should do that. But the responsible thing for us to do now is to pass through the fiscal year--and this extension takes us to September 30--so States can plan, so people can get back to work, so we have some semblance of policy regarding building the Nation's infrastructure in place now. People are crying out for jobs across this country, and we may not pass any other piece of legislation this year but our transportation and infrastructure legislation.

This, and the FAA reauthorization, in addition to highway and surface and all the other modes, our FAA extensions have become almost the saddest commentary you could have on building, again, the Nation's important infrastructure. We have done 17 extensions of the FAA legislation, so our airports and others can't plan. Now, we are not going to let that happen under our watch. We are going to set policy today and extend until the end of this fiscal year in a responsible manner.

Some people on the conservative side of the aisle, and I will match my credentials with any of them, want to know about the money that's being spent.

This is not money that's general revenue. This is entirely within the trust fund, the Federal Highway and Transit Trust Fund.

When we came here, we also said we were going to force the Congress to spend more money in general revenue than we had in that fund, and this extension adheres to the policy that we won't be reckless in spending and we won't spend beyond what we have in the fund. This extension only expends funds from within that trust fund. So I want my conservative friends--and I consider myself in the conservative fiscal corner, the responsible corner in spending--to know that that is the way this is crafted. So, again, I think we have an obligation to move forward. We are doing it on a sound basis. We are freezing at the 2010 levels. And we will be able, at least until September, to get people to work.

Now, I know sometimes I can move legislation along in this body, and I work hard sometimes to do that. But I can tell you I cannot pass a full authorization bill by this Friday. We just took over, again, some of these responsibilities a few weeks ago. We've had six extensions. I don't want to get to, again, into a situation where we are doing these short-term, job-killing extensions.

So that's the reason that we're here. That's the responsibility that we have as a Congress in moving forward and again setting that policy and setting a timeframe in which our States and others who actually do these projects can operate. And again, it's being done within the responsible parameters that this new Congress and the House of Representatives has set forward.

I do want to say, finally, that I thank my colleague, Mr. Rahall, who is the ranking member, for his interest in moving forward with a long- term bill. In reaching out, we held the first of our hearings, and we're doing these around the country. We've done more than a dozen from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We started in Beckley, West Virginia, a little over a week ago, in the hometown of the ranking member because we want our permanent legislation to be long term, a 6-year bill, to have in place sound policy. We want it done on a bipartisan basis. And to ensure also that it was done on a bicameral basis, we did almost an unprecedented hearing with Senator Boxer, the gentlelady from California, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate. We did a joint bicameral, bipartisan hearing in Los Angeles last week to kick off our larger effort to, again, have in place the very best policy regarding our infrastructure for the Nation.

So with those comments, again, I want to thank folks that we have an agreement here to move forward. We need to do that. We need to get people working in this country and do it in a responsible fashion. And I believe that H.R. 662 will do that.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 662, the

``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Title IV of this

bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and thus falls

within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 662, and would ask

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

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, who is one of the primary leaders in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), another leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the Rail Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another

outstanding member and a new member of our committee who has great local government experience as a former mayor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

I would like to inquire as to the balance of time on each side.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Each of us who is sent to Congress, Madam Speaker, has certain responsibilities. First, we have responsibilities to our constituents in our districts. Then we are sent here, and by the grace of the good Lord, on our side the steering committee, the approval of leadership and our colleagues, we get to do certain tasks.

Mine is now to try to shepherd forward transportation policy for our country. That's an important responsibility, again, because we have millions of Americans who don't have jobs. Probably the hardest thing that I face when I go home or when I talk to folks across the country and in my district are the people who have lost their homes, who can't make their mortgage payments or who are struggling. They want to go to work, most of them I've talked to, and they don't have the opportunity.

Now, I know a new Congress has come, and that new Congress has been sent a very clear message about spending, about conserving assets and resources here. I think that Congress gets it and that the American people have mandated that approach. We can also many times be here, doing things that might prove a political point; but from time to time, we have to step back, and we have to do something for the very good of the country. I think this is one of those times that we have an important obligation.

What will happen on Friday, if we don't act accordingly today and pass H.R. 662, is literally a disaster because we will shut down all of the transportation projects across the land, those projects that have any connection to the Federal Government.

Now, we have also said that we can't pass in continuing resolutions the authorization for legislation, so that's the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a bipartisan agreement to move forward. We have an opportunity to actually expand and define the time in which we can accomplish the important work of government.

Some people say, oh, these are just transportation projects. Yet, if you go back to the very beginning of the Nation, they came together first for national security; but then the Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson--were pretty smart. They also wanted to be able to do infrastructure projects that transcended arbitrary political boundaries. I love to read about Washington and his vision to open the canals and the post roads. Some of the first work of the Congress was to authorize transportation and infrastructure projects for the Nation, through the vision of people like Lincoln, to connect the continent. So that kind of leadership has come from people in the past, and we have that responsibility today to move forward.

So I think that people can go home after they vote for this and say, I did something positive. We acted in a fiscally responsible way. We're dealing with the trust fund money that people have paid in. When they put gallons of gasoline in their cars, they paid 18.4 cents, which went into the trust fund.

We didn't spend recklessly, but we did act responsibly and we're getting people working again. And we did it in a period of time, not the hiccup and the sporadic six passed extensions, in a timeframe in which we can actually get major infrastructure projects, people working again. So I think we can all take heart in a bipartisan effort that we've had here that Congress can work and the people's work can get done by people coming together.

I know we still have disagreements on policy, and I've pledged to work on both sides. I even offered to buy the beer and pizza when we finish the listening tours. And with Senator Boxer, she wanted, I think, fruit drinks, and I'll even throw those in, too, if we can come together and establish sound policy for the Nation so infrastructure can move forward. And we can do it. I really think we can do it.

So we have 6 months of definition. We have 6 months to get the rest of the job done. But I'm confident that everybody here today can join and we can make a difference, a difference for those people wanting us to be responsible and do what they sent us here for.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, again, this is a purely technical amendment and reviewed by both sides of the aisle in both bodies. We found three technical changes to correct drafting errors in H.R. 662. We want this to go to the President. We want it signed, and we want to make certain that it has all the technical provisions necessary and clear language.

So the amendment adds two commas to the bill on page 12 and also another on 15. And on page 15, it also strikes an authorization in the current extension that H.R. 662 failed to strike. So it's purely technical in nature, but we do want it correct.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Well, congratulations my colleagues. Welcome to the era of smoke and mirrors, and that's exactly what this motion to recommit is; and I urge its defeat.

You heard the gentleman describing bridges. He, again, is trying to mislead the entire House on this particular motion to recommit. It is smoke and mirrors.

I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

H.R. 662. A bill to provide an extension of Federal-aid

highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and

other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending

enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs,

(Rept. 112-18, Pt. 1); Referred to the Committee on The

Budget for a period ending not later than February 28, 2011,

for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall

within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause

1(d), rule X.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Aderholt, first of all, I want to thank you for recognizing me and also giving me this opportunity to speak on my amendment which in consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw and not offer.

That is amendment, I believe it's numbered 543 as printed. Mr. Aderholt, first I want to thank you for your pledge to continue to work

with your subcommittee and our full committee in your rigorous oversight of how the Transportation Security Administration is spending our scarce resources.

Unfortunately, the TSA bureaucracy has mushroomed since 9/11 from a workforce of 16,500 to 62,000 employees today.

The purpose of my amendment is my concern about the growth and administrative overhead--a huge number of personnel. TSA has more employees than the Department of State, the Department of Education and Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development combined.

Now listen to this: TSA headquarters, which is within a few miles of where we're standing, has 3,776--latest count--administrative bureaucrats employed, and 27 percent are supervisors of them. The average pay of these 3,700-plus bureaucrats here is $105,000.

Having helped create TSA in the aftermath of 9/11, I can tell you we never intended to support this kind of bureaucracy.

Now listen to this: if you think the bureaucracy in Washington is bad, there are 9,233 non-screener employees at the airports across the country. There are only 400 airports in the program. That's 20 bureaucrats per airport on average. This agency is totally out of control. In addition, in the 2012 budget, they have asked for 3,300 more positions.

In its nearly 10 years since creation, Mr. Chairman, TSA still lacks the institutional capacity to become a performance-driven organization.

On January 28, TSA shut down the most successful screening program we had. We set up two models, both with Federal supervision and one using private contractors. Every positive initiative we have ever gotten from TSA came from those programs, and they shut it down. In addition, one week later, they granted collective bargaining rights to TSA workers.

It is time that we dramatically reform TSA and cut its massive administrative bureaucracy. I will work with you. My cuts are not as surgical as maybe they need to be, but we will work with you to improve its mission. My goal is for less bureaucracy and to redirect TSA to its important security mission.

Finally, the failure of TSA puts this Nation at risk--read the GAO reports--with the total failure of the SPOT program, the behavior recognition program. Get the classified briefings on the failure of the advanced technology. They went out and bought $500 million worth of equipment, and spent another $500 million to install it. The failure is dramatic. You can read that as Members of Congress.

The failure of the pat-down program. Everyone is getting patted down. Do you think that's helpful? I implore Members to get a classified briefing and see, again, the results of that failure.

The failure to have even a pilot identification. Six years ago, I asked for a pilot identification that's durable, not something that looks like it came out of a crackerjack box, with the pilot's photograph on it and a biometric measure. After spending millions of dollars, TSA gave a card, but the only pilots on it were Wilbur and Orville Wright. The biometric measure that they put in is a total failure. Any credit card you have in your wallet has a better capability than what they have produced.

It is failure after failure, and they put us at risk. I thank you for offering to work with me to make the necessary changes.

Will the gentleman yield?

The number is 62,000, of which we have 3,770 administrative personnel in Washington, DC, and another over 9,000 administrative personnel in non-screening positions across the country.

Offered By: Mr. Mica

Amendment No. 440: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: