Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I urge my friends in the Chamber to oppose the substitute that is being proposed because it does not offer us the opportunity for the flexibility that we need.

Let me say at the outset, and this has been repeated over and over, that the proposal before us does keep standards, it ensures standards, it has fire walls to protect standards and it even increases standards as we heard from the previous speaker, because for the first time we will have teachers who have qualifications to teach our most disadvantaged students.

We increase funding. There is no diminution of funding in this legislation. The red herring that at some point funding will be decreased or diverted is not possible under the provisions of this legislation. Most importantly, we do improve quality.

I described earlier the problem that I face. I have some wonderful Head Start programs. I represent some small areas and some large metropolitan areas and some of the Head Start programs are great. I have been to them; I have seen what they can do. But the substitute before us would eliminate the flexibility that we need in some of our other areas.

I described two Head Start programs, one with 200 children, one with 300 and not enough to support 34 noninstructive personnel that are required under the standards that we cannot get any flexibility on. We have pleaded to try to have that flexibility, to give these students a chance. So here we have for the first time the opportunity to improve the quality.

Let us talk about the students that we have, the children that we have in these programs. These, Mr. Chairman, are our poorest children. These are our most disadvantaged children. These are our children that maybe are social problems throughout their lives. Here is an opportunity to improve the quality. They have come from homes where they cannot have that advantage, and Head Start can give them that advantage. We can do more even with less money.

I measured the amount of money we are spending in this one program that is over two counties. It is $8,439. I have no problem with spending that. I would double the amount if the program is effective. The best prep school, preschool program in my district costs, ironically, $8,400. I could save $39 and send them to that and I am not even proposing that. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity for flexibility and quality, improving the lives of our most needy children.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the things that have been said need to be responded to. Mostly there has been talk. I am pleased to have been part of action to deal with the AIDS problem, particularly on the continent of Africa and around the world.

Part of this Republican Congress, rather than talk, has acted, and under the direction of our President, rather than talk, who has acted; but to give complete details in response, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arizona at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his response and his explanation and also his compassion for all the people who suffer from this horrible disease, but we do regretfully recommend that we oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I come in very strong opposition to the McGovern amendment. I could not be any more opposed to any amendment that has been proposed in the House in some time. Let me discuss for my colleagues, some of them have been here, some of them have not been here during what has happened with the increase of illegal narcotics coming in from Colombia.

In 1992 and 1993, these charts are almost unbelievable. There is almost no cocaine coming in from Colombia, and there was zero heroin coming in from Colombia. Then appeared on the scene the Clinton administration which said, oh, we cannot harm the hairs on any guerrillas, we must protect human rights in Colombia and we must not do anything about drug trafficking there; we must not interfere in the civil conflict. We did nothing and tens of thousands died. Members of the legislature, members of the judiciary, citizens by the thousands died in the civil war that had gone on there, and the atrocities increased.

The production of illegal narcotics increased, and the deadly narcotics came from Colombia. Here is the statistics: again, zero in 1993 and almost all of the deadly heroin coming into the United States, and this had some results. The results are absolutely incredible.

In the year 2000, 19,698, almost double from 1993, Americans died from drug-related deaths, more than homicides. We have a silent war going on in this country. So we sat down and we formed a plan, and it was opposed time and time again.

Former Congressman Gilman, who chaired the Committee on International Relations, brought forth a Plan Colombia and plans to try to bring in helicopters to go after this, to assist in training the Colombians and attacking drugs and terrorism; and it was shot down time and time again.

Finally, through the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hastert), who was chair of the Subcommittee on Drug Oversight, and God, I think, had a hand in making him Speaker of the House, we were able to get Plan Colombia together.

The critics said we were wrong, The Washington Post said. The critics now say we are right. Plan Colombia and President Bush have put it into action to train the military down there, to stop the violence. The violence has stopped. The statistics we hear are old statistics. Twenty-five percent reduction in murders, 33 percent reduction in killing. We stopped some of the killing, and this amendment will again put us in the position of beginning the killing, beginning the destruction, not only in Colombia but on our streets and neighborhoods.

So we have a chance now to move Plan Colombia forward and we cannot destroy that chance through this amendment.

Plan Colombia, the progress is unbelievable. It benefitted 22,829 families in Colombia, supported 24,549 hectares of legal crops, it completed 349 community projects, established 33 legal service centers, constructed 19 oral trial courtrooms, trained 3,400 judges, and aided 774,000 internally displaced people. Those are the statistics. That is the truth. That is what Plan Colombia has done, and we cannot take a step backward tonight.

It would be a disaster for those mothers and fathers that I have met with who have lost their children from the cocaine, the heroin that has come up from Colombia that we have not stopped. We have a chance tonight to move Plan Colombia forward or move it backward and allow the killing to continue in Colombia. Again, in the name of human rights, how many more people should die there? How many more people should die on the streets of my neighborhood in Florida or in the streets of New York? Rich, poor, all are affected by what is going on. What about the silent deaths by the tens of thousands in our country?

Tonight would be the worst step we could take in the history of this Congress relating to our work against illegal narcotics to pass this amendment, to take a step backward to where we were, and to do what did not work should not be allowed to again happen in the Congress of the United States. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding. I also thank her for her leadership and for her work on the Committee on Government Reform. I had the opportunity to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources when some of the Plan Colombia was put together.

And in conclusion here, we know that in the past, not much was done to stem illegal narcotic production and trafficking or the violence in Colombia. We had a President in Colombia who tried to the Cumbayah and the peace in dealing with the terrorists and that did not work. We now have a President in Colombia who is committed to the tenets of Plan Colombia, which is a strong interdiction, which is demanding reforms in the military to cultivation of other alternative crops, to building the judiciary and the strength of the institutions of Colombia. We have a President of the United States who is committed to Plan Colombia. We have seen the results in the past where tens of thousands have died per year in Colombia and in the United States. And now we have an opportunity to move forward. Even the statistics of the Washington Post, which was a critic in the beginning of Plan Colombia, now says the critics were wrong. A 25 percent reduction in murders, a 33 percent reduction in killings. So we have a President here committed to the plan. We have a President in Colombia committed to the plan, and it is a working plan and people are not dying.

Finally, let me insert in the Record since 1993, the number of deaths provided to me today by ONDCP, Americans who died from drug-related deaths in this country, drug-induced deaths, 148,185 Americans, more than we have lost in any tragedy we can imagine of contemporary times, in the period from 1993 to 2000, not even a 10-year period. We have a chance to stop the death and the dying and the destruction of lives here. We have a chance to stop the death and destruction and lives being lost in our neighboring country Colombia; so it would be a step backward to pass this amendment proposed by the gentleman. I know he is well intended, but I strongly urge opposition to this.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time.

I had the opportunity in Congress some 2\1/2\ years ago to chair the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for some 2 years. During that time, I held the first hearings, really, in Congress on the question of legalization of marijuana; and I tried to approach the issue of the medical use of marijuana from an open standpoint.

We conducted hearings and brought in what we considered were the best medical experts, and we dug into all of the testimony. And, my colleagues, I can say here tonight that we did not find one scintilla of evidence that there was any medical benefit by consuming marijuana, whether an individual was healthy or whether they were ill, or terminally ill. There was no evidence to that effect.

It has become sort of a cause celebre to promote these initiatives with huge amounts of money. And at first blush, I think people support some of these as possibly being compassionate, as we hear here.

We have also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain.

What we did learn in our testimony and what I have learned over the several years that I have served on that committee in the Congress is, we did learn this one thing. We learned that the marijuana that we have on the market today, and we have heard this from the previous chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others, who cited that today's marijuana is not the marijuana we had some 20 or 30 years ago. There is a several hundred percent increase in potency in what is on the market.

We also heard that marijuana is the greatest substance abuse of our teenagers, even exceeding, believe it or not, alcohol today. We also learned that there are more than 19,000 drug-related deaths in the United States, overdose deaths, which now exceed homicides. And everything we do towards trying to glorify or utilize marijuana for whatever use or whatever purpose does lead more of our young people to use this.

Marijuana is a gateway drug, and so we end up with a death toll that we have seen so painfully across this Nation.

So if the object here is to relieve pain, that is not what is being done. It will cause pain.

Almost every police group opposes the Hinchey amendment. Let me just read some of the folks that oppose it. The Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest police union, made up of 300,000 members of State and local

enforcement officers nationwide, and the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition, with more than 60,000 members, have expressed strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment that would prohibit enforcement of Federal marijuana laws in some States but not in others.

Police groups oppose the amendment because Federal enforcement of marijuana helps deter use and trafficking in harder drugs and also in related crimes against property and some of our most violent crime.

Finally, some of those police groups that oppose the Hinchey amendment have said to us, we strongly encourage Members of Congress who support their local police officers and law enforcement to oppose this amendment. And we have letters from the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition and the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police stating their clear opposition.

Again, I think the presentation of this amendment has been that this would relieve pain and be compassionate. My colleagues, this will cause pain, and there are many who confirm that.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 397. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

I am pleased to rise this evening in support of the motion offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. We are in concurrence with the other side of the aisle. This is a bipartisan effort to instruct conferees on the position of the House as opposed to the Senate.

I would say very briefly that the level of funding that the House proposes is in the best interests of our aviation community. There are a number of programs that have been spoken to, air traffic control modernization and other safety and security issues, that do need to be addressed at the level that is authorized by the House and that is the preferable position. Again, I am pleased to join my colleague. It would be sad if we stepped back, last year was the safest year in the record of safety in American aviation history, and not properly address the needs of one of the most viable parts of our economy and that is the aviation industry. We support the position, we support this motion to instruct conferees, we support a 4-year as opposed to a 3-year reauthorization. I would strongly encourage the adoption of the motion to instruct conferees offered by my colleague.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to mechanical malfunctions on Delta Flight 5007. The airplane had to make an emergency landing and return to Orlando International Airport. I could not vote on the following:

Rollcall No. 354. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

Rollcall No. 355. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'';

Rollcall No. 356. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

Rollcall No. 357. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'';

Rollcall No. 358. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'';

Rollcall No. 359. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Appointment Of Conferees

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 514.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 514 on page 37, line 14 through page 39, line 10. This particular section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 521 on page 41, line 15 through line 25, of H.R. 2555 on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of the House rule 21 and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, the DeLauro amendment adopted by the Committee on Appropriations as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is in fact a significant change in the procurement policy of the United States, a subject clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform under House Rule 10.

The DeLauro amendment calls for a broad sweeping contracting ban for so-called inverted domestic corporations and is clearly a change in existing law. As such, this section is in clear violation of clause 2(b) of House Rule 21, providing that no provision changing existing law shall be reported in any general appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against section 522.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 522 on page 42, line 1, through page 43, line 24. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It, in fact, changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I have assured the sponsor of this original provision, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be adding a similar provision to our aviation security bill, H.R. 2144, during full committee markup tomorrow, Wednesday, and we will have similar language, and we do have the authority to authorize this language.

Unfortunately, his language is authorizing on an appropriations measure; and therefore I raise that point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield.

Mr. Chairman, again, I think that the point of order that I raised clearly does demonstrate, in fact if we look at the language before us, that there is authorization language contained by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), which is excellent language and directive language but it does authorize on an appropriations measure, which is not allowed under the rules of the House.

The gentleman has raised issues about the substance of what is proposed in the full committee markup, and we will address some of those, but we do have a provision and we clearly have under our charter the responsibility for legislating the procedure which is followed. We will have the Under Secretary directed to not implement, other than on a test basis, the CAPPS2 program until the Under Secretary provides to Congress a certification that certain steps are taken. And later on we will have, of course, a GAO review required under our measure.

So we have the authority to the point of order clearly under the charter within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This is going to be considered under the FAA AIR-21 reauthorization. The security measure which is being considered, H.R. 2144, will be marked up tomorrow and blended into legislation which has already passed the House and, again, clearly under our authority as authorizers.

Mr. Speaker, as our Nation remembered its war dead on Memorial Day and June 6th D-Day, I believe it is fitting to pay tribute to all of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. In our most recent conflict in Iraq, 14 individuals from my State of Florida gave their lives in service to our Nation in that war. While we honor and remember all those brave men and women and their loved ones who have given their full measure of devotion to their country from the days of the American Revolution to this hour, I submit the names of the following members of our military, their age, service and Florida hometown for special remembrance:

Lance Cpl. Andrew J. Aviles, Tampa,-18, Marine Corps.

Cpl. Armando A. Gonzalez, Hialeah, 25, Marine Corps.

Cpl. John T. Rivero, Tampa, 23, Army National Guard Infantry.

Lance Cpl. Brian R. Buesing, Cedar Key, 20, Marine Corps.

Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley, Fort Myers, 26, Marine Corps.

PFC Michael R. Creighton Weldon, Palm Bay, 20, Army.

Lance Cpl. Antonio J. Sledd, Tampa, 20, Marine Corps.

Ranger Specialist Marc A. Anderson, Brandon, 30, Army.

Army Ranger Sgt. Bradley S. Crose, Orange Park, 30, Army.

Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Matthew J. Bourgeois, Tallahassee, 35, Navy.

Sgt. Michael C. Barry, Brandon, 29, Army National Guard.

CWO Timothy W. Moehling, Panama City, 35, Army.

Master Sgt. Michael Maltz, St. Petersburg, 42, Air Force.

Specialist Pedro Pena, (Last residence in Florida), 35, Army.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 2115, pursuant to House Resolution 265, it shall be in order to consider amendment No. 5 as printed in the report of the Committee on Rules before consideration of any other amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2115.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record at this point an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) regarding H.R. 2115.

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

Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for their leadership in trying to bring this measure together and to the floor.

This is a 4-year reauthorization, and it is very difficult. We have over 70 members on the full committee and over 40 members on the Subcommittee on Aviation, and the White House and all the various and sundry interests that want specific provisions in a reauthorization bill such as we have before us. But we have come together, and I am real proud of the work that the Members have done and the staff.

I will have a manager's amendment that incorporates some of the issues that we have agreed to on a bipartisan basis, and also pledge to work with all interests and sides on various issues as we hopefully bring this measure to conference.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to the future of aviation in our country. It is also fitting and I think very appropriate that on the 100th anniversary of manned flight by the Wright brothers that we bring this rewrite of our Federal aviation policy before the Congress. No nation in the world relies more on the safe and efficient operation of aircraft than the United States.

Just think about it: Two-thirds of all the air passengers in the world take off from the United States each year and each day, from U.S. soil. Without a reliable air transportation system, communities would become stranded, families would be separated, time-sensitive cargo lost, and countless jobs and opportunities forsaken.

This bill, H.R. 2115, also referred to as Flight 100, addresses the many pressing needs of our aviation system. We know it has been through a great deal of turmoil since September 11. I believe it also provides good elements for its future.

This legislation keeps our promise to the flying public and builds on the landmark successes of its predecessor legislation, known as AIR-21. This legislation continues the guarantee that all the taxes and revenues paid into the Aviation Trust Fund are fully spent, and that airport improvements and air traffic control modernization that is so important is fully funded.

H.R. 2115 provides the funding necessary for the administration to operate air traffic control systems to the very highest standards of safety, and also allows us to modernize our outdated air traffic control system. It also increases the funding to airports to help build the capacity we need for future economic growth. This bill also makes much needed reforms to FAA's management structure by redefining the role of the chief operating officer.

I am pleased to see the administration within the last 24 hours has named that chief operating officer, and this legislation will clearly define the responsibilities of that position as it relates to the administrator of FAA.

It makes also, I think, a greater success of our Small Community Air Service Pilot Program, and it reforms the Essential Air Service Program to ensure that communities that need this service will continue to receive air service.

The bill streamlines the environmental review process for urgent airport capacity projects, and it does so without weakening any of the underlying environmental statutes or requirements. It also authorizes compensation to general aviation entities for losses resulting from security mandates. Again, they have not been reimbursed like the airlines or other entities that the Congress has previously provided for.

A lot of hard work has gone into this legislation, and I think we have worked diligently with the other side of the aisle to craft careful and meaningful compromises. The aviation industry in the United States is still the strongest in the world, and we must keep it that way. This legislation provides the stability and funding to ensure that we will continue to lead the aviation industry of the world.

This is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation, and I urge all of the Members to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a senior member of the Subcommittee on Aviation and immediate past Chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who is also a senior member of our Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), an outstanding new Member and also the vice chair of our subcommittee who is doing a great job.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), one of our most active members on our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who is a member of our subcommittee who represents probably the largest aviation manufacturing facility, and does it so well, in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the serious concerns that the gentleman from Kansas has raised relating to the repair manuals and other information that should be made available, and we will work with the gentleman to make sure that the concerns raised are addressed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the former lieutenant governor of the State of Montana.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue before the House, and I look forward to working with him to come to a fair solution to the problem raised by him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a former member of the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Nebraska that while we do not address in this particular legislative measure before us today security issues raised by the gentleman, they will be addressed in a separate piece of legislation that is now pending, consideration by leadership and homeland security. Certainly all of the issues that the gentleman raised have been raised by other Members, and we will try to right-size and correct some of the problems with TSA and aviation security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North

Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very knowledgeable member and a pilot who serves on our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman has my assurances that this will be the case and that I will work with the gentleman to see that the appropriate changes are made in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased in the spirit of bipartisanship, the good spirit in which the legislation has been crafted together with both sides of the aisle, to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and particularly the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their leadership in putting this legislation together. There are a number of difficult issues. I particularly again want to reiterate thanks to the staff who have worked long and hard to bring this measure in rapid order before the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, this is a vital piece of legislation. I think all we have to do is look back on the events of September 11. If you took American aviation for granted, certainly that day was an awakening. Every day since September 11, we have struggled to get back on our feet. We have seen the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in our economy as a result of damage done not only by the events of September 11 but the struggling difficulties of our major air carriers. We take aviation for granted in this United States. It has provided a magic carpet, a way of life unknown by any people who have ever walked the face of this Earth, but it has become a part of the very fabric of our society. This legislation will set our policy for the next 4 years as far as aviation, so it is very important.

We heard from the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia how a closedown in just general aviation has affected the Nation's capital and the areas they represent. We cannot have that anywhere. We are willing to work with them and work with all to make certain that we restore this vital industry, that we restore jobs and that we protect a way of life for the American people. That is, to travel again in a manner in which only we can think about today and only 100 years ago the Wright brothers could dream about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support of it.

I think we need to do everything possible to protect the intent of our Buy America requirements, and I think the gentleman's amendment does exactly that. In the aviation industry, unfortunately, we are facing tremendous loss in jobs, employment, and manufacturing. We have lost about half of the large aircraft manufacturing, we produce no regional jets in the United States, and I think the very least we can do is have a Buy America provision that has teeth, that has provisions that will ensure that our manufactured goods are respected by the mandates set down by Congress to Buy America. So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes some relatively modest changes to the legislation before us. Most of the changes are technical in nature and address issues that were raised after the committee approved the legislation in May.

One significant change is the provision relating to crew training, and I want to elaborate a bit on that. Our current law provides and requires that airlines provide hands-on self-defense training to flight attendants to help them deal with a terrorist threat.

The amendment that we have makes clear that this training is voluntary and that flight attendants who choose to take it will do so on their own time. The airlines will not be required to pay

them while they are taking this training. The Transportation Security Administration, not the airlines, will be providing the training. Both the flight attendants and airlines have agreed to this particular provision.

The airlines will still have to provide other nonphysical security training for flight attendants. Airlines provide that training now, and under this bill they could continue to provide the same training.

The amendment requires TSA to set minimum standards for flight attendant training, but deletes the provision in current law requiring the Transportation Security Administration to set the minimum number of hours for this particular type of training. Rather, the Transportation Security Administration should set proficiency standards and leave it to the airlines as to how many hours of training it will take to reach that level of proficiency.

In addition to the crew training provision, this amendment makes a number of improvements to the bill. These improvements include the following:

First, allowing the Department of Transportation to request information from the Department of Homeland Security in preparing its monthly report on passenger complaints about screening.

Next, directing the FAA to publish its policy on the use of passenger facility charge revenue for ground access projects.

Allowing 76-seat regional jets to qualify for the commuter aircraft slots for Reagan National Airport.

Additionally, allowing DOT to increase the subsidy to a commuter serving a small community if that commuter is experiencing significantly increased costs.

Another provision is allowing an airline to begin service to a small community that previously had subsidized essential air service without being subject to the many regulatory requirements of the Essential Air Service program.

An additional provision is revising the provision requiring aircraft manufacturers to make maintenance manuals available to aircraft repair stations in order to accommodate concerns expressed by the manufacturers.

Also we have a provision directing GAO to study how airlines were compensated after 9-11, especially whether they should be compensated for the devaluation of their aircraft.

A further provision directs FAA to study whether certain aircraft operations in Alaska can be performed under part 91 of FAA rules.

An additional provision allows current or former military airports designated by FAA to use AIP money for the reimbursement of a hangar.

Another provision allows up to 12 large airports to use AIP money for interest payments on debts. Small airports can already do this.

Another provision requires large airports seeking to build a runway to make their master plan available to the metropolitan planning organization in the area where the airport is located.

Finally, we have a provision directing DOT to report on whether it is appropriate and necessary for the airport in the Marshall Islands to receive grants under the Airport Improvement Program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good, bipartisan amendment. We have taken into consideration concerns and requests from many Members, and I believe that this manager's amendment improves on an already good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, again I urge passage of the manager's amendment. I think we have attempted our level best to accommodate a number of requests from Members, particularly since the legislation was passed out of committee. I think the best amendments with the best possible language and compromises that could be worked out have been incorporated into this manager's amendment. We still will work with others as the legislation moves forward with conference.

Again, I urge the adoption of this comprehensive manager's amendment that is also a bipartisan piece of work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions about this amendment. I think we are going to probably acquiesce to the amendment, but Ronald Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport are unique airports. They are the only federally owned commercial passenger airports in the country. They were federally chartered and

are not subject to the oversight, as I understand it, of the Governor of Virginia.

This amendment gives the Secretary of Transportation permanent authority to provide grants to the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority. By doing so, it removes in some ways, Congress' responsibility and ability to make periodic reviews of the airport authority's operations.

This is a unique situation. We owe it to our Nation's taxpayers to fulfill our oversight responsibilities, and sometimes Congress needs to be reminded legislatively to do so. This amendment will change that dramatically.

I have great reservations about this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has an opposing opinion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from some outstanding Members of Congress who represent the greater Washington area and the Northern Virginia area. They have been strong advocates for Ronald Reagan National Airport. They have done a great job in looking after that national asset.

It truly is unique. It is the only airport, that and Dulles, that are owned by the Federal Government. This is a protection for the taxpayers, and it is good to have required periodic review and oversight.

I do have questions about the amendment, but I do believe that they have the support to pass the amendment, so I express that concern.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I have some reservations and I think I have the responsibility as Chair of the subcommittee to raise those reservations about the amendment.

It is being put forth by three outstanding Members with very good intentions. They represent rural airports and are concerned about service and the contribution. Let me say, though, that this program goes back to 1970, late 1970s when we deregulated the airlines; and each year subsequently some of these communities have gotten this subsidization of service and some should use it, maybe some should not.

The nature of the aviation industry has changed dramatically, and service has changed dramatically around the country. And we are looking for ways to enhance that service, particularly to the small community. And you can find no stronger advocate than me in that regard.

The administration had proposed a 25 percent match; and as a compromise, we lowered that to some 10 percent. We also have a provision in here for a waiver for hardship cases. We do believe that some review is necessary and that there should not be an automatic disbursement from Washington without some equal match. And also I might add for the record that we have increased the authorization from some $65 million to $115 million. So I have concern about this.

My concern also is that in the long run we will have less money. We may have appropriators who may just take a pen and slash through the program, and we can possibly see harm done to a program that we all want to assist. So it is a good program.

I have concern about the amendment. I think that we are going to let this amendment pass and then hopefully it will be considered in conference. But I wanted to raise those points that I think are in the best interest of the essential air service for all of our smaller communities.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns. We are willing to work with those who have offered this amendment today. We do not want to do harm when we want to do good, particularly in providing essential air service to our smaller communities. So with those concerns raised, this probably will pass, but I did want to state my concern for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to conclude both the debate on the amendment and more than likely the debate on this legislation. I thank everyone for their cooperation. This truly does show how legislation can be drafted in a bipartisan manner, and it shows too with the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Pitts) amendment, which I rise in support of, that all the good ideas just do not come from the committee.

He has a good idea. It will improve this bill. It shows the majesty of the system our Founding Fathers created, and this working today does demonstrate good legislation.

I rise in support again of the Pitts amendment and the bill, the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2115, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other necessary technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until midnight, Friday, June 6, 2003 to file a report to accompany the bill H.R. 2115, to reauthorize funds for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.