Amendment Text: H.Amdt.239 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (03/31/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H2210-2211 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H2198-H2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FAA REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 658.

                              {time}  1916


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 658) 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 
Mr. Simpson (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 18 printed in House Report 112-46, offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), had been disposed of.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 234, after line 1, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 801. STATE TAXATION.

       Section 40116(d)(2)(A)(iv) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) levy or collect a tax, fee, or charge, first taking 
     effect after the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization 
     and Reform Act of 2011, upon any business located at a 
     commercial service airport or operating as a permittee of 
     such an airport other than a tax, fee, or charge that is--
       ``(I) generally imposed on sales or services by that 
     jurisdiction; or
       ``(II) utilized for purposes specified under section 
     47107(b).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman

[[Page H2199]]

from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to start out 
by saying that I appreciate the Rules Committee making this amendment 
in order. And while I am going to withdraw the amendment, I think it's 
very important to talk about this because it's a very important aspect 
of the Interstate Commerce Act.
  Just to give you a little bit of background, in 1994 when we were 
doing the FAA reauthorization bill, Congress recognized the importance 
of airports to interstate commerce and enacted legislation to prevent 
State and local governments from imposing discriminatory taxes on 
airport users to fund local projects unrelated to airport 
infrastructure improvement, maintenance, and operations.
  However, for nearly 20 years, State and local governments have taken 
advantage of a loophole by applying the burden of the tax not only to 
airport users but all similar entities within that taxing jurisdiction. 
This has allowed State and local governments to completely circumvent 
the intent of Congress and levy discriminatory taxes against interstate 
travelers, in particular, rental car customers.
  The intent of the 1994 law is very clear. Targeted taxes imposed at 
airports are to be used at airports for airport-related projects. We 
must not continue to allow State and local governments from 
circumventing these restrictions.
  Right now, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Graves. I appreciate your yielding time and 
I appreciate your bringing this amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the concept in the amendment. Although I 
know it's going to be withdrawn, the concept is important, and we need 
to address this issue in this Congress.
  This amendment would address the going crisis of discriminatory taxes 
placed on rental car transactions. I don't need to tell my colleagues 
how frustrating it is to go rent a car and see huge taxes on your bill, 
taxes put on your bill by legislative bodies that you don't get a right 
to vote on most of the time and that you don't get to vote on.
  It's a simple thing for people to do. It's cheap taxes from State and 
local officials to let tourists pay their taxes for their sports arenas 
and other facilities. ``Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that guy 
behind that tree.'' That is not the kind of tax philosophy we should 
encourage, and we should make our State and local officials do taxation 
in the proper manner which is supposed to be with either property taxes 
or sales taxes or income taxes but not these types of taxes that 
discriminate. And my jurisdictions have done as well, but it doesn't 
make it right.
  Rental car taxes target air travelers, but they also hurt low-income 
people who don't own cars and must rent instead. The 1994 FAA 
reauthorization bill included a provision to prevent taxes targeting 
air travelers to pay for projects that have nothing to do with air 
traffic. But State and local governments have exploited a loophole and 
raised billions of dollars through these taxes.
  Since 1990, more than 117 discriminatory rental car excise taxes have 
been enacted in 43 States and the District of Columbia. I was in the 
Tennessee Legislature for 24 years, and we did our share. I tried to 
oppose some of them.

                              {time}  1920

  It's wrong and we need to act.
  So I urge support for the amendment when it comes back up. I thank 
Congressman Graves for his work on the issues, and I look forward to 
working with him in the future to see this become a law in our Nation.
  Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to thank the 
Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. I very much want to 
thank the chairman for his willingness to work with us on this issue in 
the future, and I look forward to that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. NONAPPLICATION OF DAVIS-BACON.

       None of the funds made available under this Act (or an 
     amendment made by this Act) may be used to administer or 
     enforce the wage-rate requirements of subchapter IV of 
     chapter 31 of part A of subtitle II of title 40, United 
     States Code (commonly referred to as the ``Davis-Bacon 
     Act''), with respect to any project or program funded under 
     this Act (or amendment).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment would prevent any funding within the FAA Reauthorization 
and Reform Act of 2011 to be used to administer or enforce the Davis-
Bacon wage rate requirements with respect to any project or program in 
the underlying text or any amendment adopted today.
  Since the Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931, labor rates 
for government contracts have been inflated significantly, affecting 
the cost of administrative expenditures for those awarded projects. 
Unfortunately, the Davis-Bacon requirement has inadvertently caused the 
government to pass higher costs on to American taxpayers, often costing 
5 to 38 percent more than the project would have cost in the private 
sector, according to the Associated Builders and Contractors. The 
Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Davis-Bacon Act has 
cost our government more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011.
  I say enough is enough. We must reevaluate and look at what we are 
doing that costs more money for the government and, ultimately, the 
taxpayers. We must stop passing this financial burden on the backs of 
hardworking American taxpayers. In this year alone, the Heritage 
Foundation has estimated that the Davis-Bacon Act will add more than 
$10.9 billion to our already burdensome national debt. The American 
people sent a strong message to Congress in the last election, that it 
was time to rein in out-of-control government spending. Congress can 
ensure their voices are heard by voting ``yes'' on this commonsense 
attempt today.

[[Page H2200]]

  In 2009, the Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia released a 
study stating that as many as 1,500 construction jobs could have been 
created if these wage regulations were repealed or reformed to reflect 
actual market-based wages. During our current economic times, as tough 
as they are that this Nation is facing, we need to make sure that it is 
easier for the private sector to create jobs for the unemployed, not to 
hinder job growth.
  Davis-Bacon requirements undercut and undermine the hard-earned work 
of small business owners because of the time-consuming and costly 
requirements of Davis-Bacon. Businesses have constantly expressed 
frustration over the difficulty of complying with the wage rules of 
Davis-Bacon. As a result, large and often unionized companies have been 
awarded more government contracts that come at a higher price to 
taxpayers.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, which ensures 
small and large businesses have the ability to compete for all 
government contracts while saving the American taxpayers tens of 
billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what the American 
people want and need--a better deal in the marketplace.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I rise in vehement opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, here we go again.
  The majority is continuing what started out in some of the States 
this year and has been going on with more vehemency in this body. They 
are continuing attacks on the collective bargaining rights of workers. 
They are continuing to blame the workers of this country for the 
economic ills.
  I think it's worth noting that the gentleman from Texas just noted 
the trouble that people have had complying with Davis-Bacon over the 
years. It has been around since 1931 when two Republicans by the names 
of Davis and Bacon instituted the Davis-Bacon law.
  Study after study has shown that, despite the opponents' claims, the 
Davis-Bacon Act has had little or no effect on the total cost of 
federally assisted construction projects. In fact, there is a study 
that shows that the high-wage States actually attract more productive, 
effective, highly skilled, and safe workers, making the cost per mile 
of highway construction actually cheaper in high-wage States than in 
low-wage States.
  It's important to note as well that here we are in an economic 
recovery, and these Republican continued attacks on our workers of this 
country at a time when we are slowly, however slowly, pulling out of a 
recession and entering a recovery do not make any sense at all.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this continued attack on the 
workers' rights of this country.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello).
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman will control 3\1/
2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my 
friend from Texas.
  As Mr. Rahall just stated, for nearly 80 years, the Davis-Bacon Act 
has guaranteed fairness in wages and conditions for Americans who serve 
the public good and perform public works for the Federal Government. At 
a time when so many Americans are out of work and under financial 
stress, this amendment would strip away workers' rights to just 
compensation for their labor that directly benefits all of us by 
keeping aviation infrastructure across the Nation working safely. 
Further, the amendment would likely make it difficult for FAA 
contractors to find skilled workers who have the expertise necessary to 
perform work on complicated safety-critical facilities and equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just absolutely astonishing to me that my 
colleagues on the other side of this issue could stand up on the floor 
of this House and talk about jobs when the Davis-Bacon wages that they 
want to perpetuate, even though they've existed for lo these many 
years, take away so many jobs. I don't know the exact statistics; but 
Mr. Chairman, when you look at a jobs situation without Davis-Bacon 
rules, you're able to probably employ 1\1/2\ to 2 times as many people 
with good-paying, decent-paying jobs than jobs that pay them for their 
skill levels and what they're doing in the workplace, in not being 
forced to pay these much higher wages despite the job that it happens 
to be involved in.

                              {time}  1930

  I think we ought to be paying for whatever the skill labor is for 
that particular job, and if we didn't have these rules and regulations 
like Davis-Bacon, there would be a heck of a lot more jobs in this 
country. We can't afford to leave 16 million people on the sidewalk.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is correct. On an average, 
this Davis-Bacon wage requirement costs an average of 22 percent above 
market wages. That means that the Davis-Bacon act costs 22 percent or 
more on costs for getting projects done, which means fewer projects can 
get done, which hampers the ability that we have, local governments 
have to ensure that contractors and work is done across this country.
  This amendment saves taxpayers millions of dollars--we heard perhaps 
a billion. It allows for more competition, and I ask my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield the balance of my 
time to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I guess this is part of the mantra of the 
majority on this particular bill: do more with less, when actually what 
we're doing is less with less, because there would be less wages paid 
to our American workers if this amendment were to be adopted, and there 
would be less safety provided to our American workers. There would be 
less health care coverage provided, less pension care coverage, less 
efficient, less highly skilled workers if this gentleman's amendment is 
adopted.
  So I conclude by urging all of our colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 259, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 
     2 on page 260 (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I ask 
unanimous consent that 2 minutes of my 5 minutes be yielded to and 
controlled by the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois, to yield time as he should see fit.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Ohio?

[[Page H2201]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I'm going to be brief in this opening.
  Let me just make this observation. This is the 17th extension, I 
believe, of the FAA bill. We haven't had an FAA bill since 2003, and 
this is going to take it to two more years because the President said 
he won't sign this bill unless this amendment is adopted. The Senate 
has declared this a nonstarter; and so if we want to give fancy 
speeches, and for those just tuning in around the country, welcome to 
whack the union night because this will be a fourth, fifth anti-union 
vote that has nothing to do with the aviation system.
  Even on the last amendment, I've got to tell you, you can't say it 
costs jobs and increases costs at the same time. If you hire the same 
amount of workers before Davis-Bacon and hire two times as many 
workers, well, the project is going to cost the same. So it's that kind 
of circular argument that's leading this circular firing squad.
  It's a good amendment. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the points made by my friend 
from Ohio.
  The National Mediation Board made the right decision, incidentally, 
at the request of 191 Members of Congress, both Democrats and 
Republicans, after holding many hearings. In the words of Congresswoman 
Candice Miller: ``This is not a pro-union or anti-union vote. This is 
about fairness.''
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say 
this is a good example of what's going on here. The last amendment was 
going to repeal Davis-Bacon that's been around for 80 years, but 80 
years is okay, 75 years isn't. That doesn't even make sense in this 
debate or anywhere else in America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
ranking member, Mr. Rahall.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it's very clear that the other body would 
not accept this amendment if the bill goes over to them with this in 
it. It's clear that the President of the United States would not accept 
this bill with the current language because he has already said he will 
veto it if it comes to his desk in this way.
  So I guess the proponents of this particular provision are just 
wanting to continue to pass extension after extension, thereby 
threatening airport improvement, threatening to halt airport 
construction, just as they're threatening to shut down our government.
  It's not about unions. It's not about increasing union 
representation. It's about fairness. It's about what's right for the 
American worker. That's all we're talking about in this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is about what's right for American workers.
  Section 903 of the bill repeals a rule of the National Mediation 
Board, which is the law of the land, that was finalized to provide for 
fair and democratic union elections among airline and railroad workers.
  The rule has not opened the floodgates to unionization. But it has 
made union elections fair.
  Under the prior rule--the rule that would be reinstated by this 
bill--a majority of all eligible voters had to vote in favor of a 
union, in order .for that union to be certified by the National 
Mediation Board as their representative. That was undemocratic and 
unfair.
  The current rule requires the mediation board to count ballots 
according to those who actually voted. The majority rules. That is a 
precept of our democracy, and it should control in union elections just 
like it controls in any other election.
  The National Mediation Board's rule is right, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to keep it the law of the land.
  I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 45 
seconds.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment really 
restores democracy to the American workplace, and it restores the 
American principle of majority vote and majority rule. The decision by 
the National Mediation Board to begin recognizing election results 
based upon who actually votes in the election is correct and a long 
time coming.
  It was a fair and open process that included a 60-day comment period 
and public hearing with 34 witnesses, and their actions were upheld in 
court.
  Think of this in our committee. Our rules are a majority of those 
present and voting. No committee in this Congress would operate under 
these rules because they would not be able to prevail on any of the 
votes because people could just stay away and they would be counted 
``no.''
  No PTA would operate under these rules. They may have a very large 
membership. So we ought to restore democracy, protect American workers 
and vote for this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of T for 
yielding to me.
  The language in the bill gets it exactly right, and I rise in strong 
opposition to this striking amendment. The National Mediation Board, 
three political appointees in a 2-1 decision a year ago, undid 75 years 
of law, Railway Labor Act, that simply says that to certify a union, 50 
percent plus one of the group has to vote in favor of it.

                              {time}  1940

  And as the chairman said, the decertification part is a much higher 
bar. So it has to be a majority plus one to decertify. That is totally 
wrong. The bill has it right. Vote against this striking amendment, and 
vote for fairness and for the American people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
  Mr. MICA. I would be pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chair of the Aviation 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I am just sitting here, listening to this debate and people talking 
about fairness and 75 years. I did a little math, and 75 years ago, the 
Railway Labor Act was enacted by a very heavily Democratic Congress in 
the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. And now we are told that they 
were unfair and unkind, and so on, to organized

[[Page H2202]]

labor. This is something that was passed by the Congress. The law, the 
National Labor Relations Act, has always--until now, for 75 years--been 
interpreted to mean that a majority of those affected had to vote to 
certify a union.
  I think if we want to change it, if our sense of what's fair has 
changed over the last 75 years--and it has in other areas--it should be 
done by an act of Congress and not by the National Labor Relations 
Board and the National Mediation Board in this fashion. It clearly 
upsets the balance that was struck and has served us well for several 
generations.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When people read this record, they really need to know what this 
amendment is about and what we are talking about. What we are talking 
about is that the rule that the Mica bill repeals is that if you have 
100 people who work for a company and you have an election and 70 of 
them show up and 65 of them vote to certify a union, the union loses 
because you don't get 50 plus the universe.
  Now in our example, Members of Congress, where voter turnout was 
about 45 percent in the last election, I have got 200,000 registered 
voters in my district, and 100,000 show up, I get 70,000. I'm having 
champagne. You know, This is great, Honey. We won another one. We 
fooled them again. Well, I would lose 130,000-70,000 because the rule 
that has been in place since 1935--and again, I am saddened that 
folks--maybe you have to have an even number to be bad law. But good 
law is, you know, something that is only 75 years. That's just nuts. I 
mean, that is crazy.
  And I will steal from my friend from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who is 
the cosponsor of this amendment. You know, when the Constitution was 
framed, who could vote in this country? White guys who owned land. And 
if you asked them 75 years later, they may have said, Man, I can't 
believe they changed that. It's unbelievable. Or how about women? 
Another 100 years, women couldn't vote in this country. If you asked 
some guys today, they may say, The country really got screwed up when 
you gave women the right to vote. That is a non sequitur. It's a false 
argument, and the best proof is right here in this House of 
Representatives.
  When the old majority was on their way out--and we all know they 
didn't do anything--we needed to pass a continuing resolution to keep 
the government open until March 4. Well, you know what, 75 of our 
Members went home for Christmas. So that CR, to keep the government 
open, passed 193-165. If the Mica rule is kept in place, the government 
would have shut down, and we would have lost that vote 193-240.
  Please pass the amendment.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan 
LaTourette-Costello amendment to keep democratic voting rights for air 
and rail workers.
  I see the current provision in the FAA Reauthorization Bill as 
reflecting an anti-worker agenda that abandons our most basic 
democratic principles. Without this amendment, the FAA bill would count 
workers who choose not to vote in a union election as a no vote on 
union representation.
  Each member of the House of Representatives got here through a fair 
and democratic election. In November, our states counted the votes for 
us and compared it to the votes for other candidates. Those with the 
most votes in November are Members of Congress today. If we needed to 
win a majority or plurality of all eligible voters--including 
nonvoters--none of us would be here today!
  I know that not all members of the House support workers' right to 
organize, but I would hope we all respect the democratic process. I 
applaud this bipartisan amendment and thank its sponsors, Mr. 
LaTourette and Mr. Costello. I urge all my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by Representatives LaTourette and Costello, which would strike 
section 903 of the underlying bill. This amendment removes language 
from the legislation which is unnecessary and destructive, and if it is 
not removed, would represent a continuation of the sustained attack on 
employee unions--and by extension, the Middle and Working class--that 
has been taking place in America. If the language of section 903 passes 
into law as currently written, it would mean that any railroad or 
airline worker who does NOT vote in a union representation election 
would automatically be counted as having voted AGAINST the union. This 
is an absurd and capricious notion.
  Last year the National Mediation Board adopted a rule which corrected 
a flawed implementation of the Railway Labor Act that would have 
allowed this absurd voting practice. The National Mediation Board rule 
change ensured that airline and railworker union elections would be 
subject to the very same democratic principles used in other American 
elections, by requiring that only the ballots of those who vote be 
counted. But section 903 of the FAA reauthorization bill repeals the 
National Mediation Board rule, and for that reason it must be struck.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
LaTourette-Costello amendment and reject the backward language of 
section 903.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of 
Amendment #21, the Latourette-Costello. I support this amendment 
because the bill we are considering today, the FAA Reauthorization and 
Reform Act of 2011, contains a provision that would undermine the 
ability of aviation and rail workers to hold fair elections for union 
representation.
  Last year, the National Mediation Board implemented a new rule that 
certifies a union as being representative of airline or railroad 
workers if a majority of ballots cast were in favor of the union. This 
was a major victory for workers, making collective bargaining rights 
more accessible for the first time in our nation's history. The bill 
before us today, H.R. 658, would eliminate that tremendous step forward 
by reverting to the old system which required that any eligible worker 
who did not vote in an election, for whatever reason, be regarded as 
voting against union representation. That is not the way elections for 
Congress are decided, it should be the way union representation is 
decided.
  That policy was out of step with our nation's Democratic principles 
and if it is reinstituted will make it harder for workers to protect 
themselves through collective bargaining, ultimately leaving many 
workers without rights. Collective bargaining rights give workers a 
voice at work--a voice that is not just able to argue for fair 
compensation and benefits, but for safer workplaces and practices. 
Passengers have a strong interest in making sure that workers are able 
to raise those concerns. With this provision, the Republican Party once 
again is engaging in union-busting. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the LaTourrette-Costello amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I come to the Floor today to stand in 
strong bipartisan support of Mr. LaTourette's and Mr. Costello's 
proposed amendment.
  At this time of extreme economic hardship for American workers across 
our country, it is vital that we, as their voice in Congress, defend 
their rights to unionize and advocate for a workplace that works for 
them.
  In recent weeks, workers from Wisconsin to Florida have been engaged 
in valiant efforts to defend their right to unionize, and collectively 
bargain for a better future. Workers have stood up across America 
calling for a more equal and more just American workplace.
  Their calls come at a dark time in our country. At no point in our 
history have incomes been so unequal--not even during America's so-
called ``Gilded Age.'' Over the last 30 years, the American worker has 
been knocked down, and worn out, as she tries harder and harder to make 
diminishing ends meet.
  As currently written, today's bill continues to take from the middle 
class, when they can afford it the least.
  The amendment being considered is a commonsense protection provided 
to the middle and working class. Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello's 
amendment does nothing radical; indeed it preserves the status quo. Yet 
their amendment shows that there are still some members in both parties 
who are willing to stand for the middle and working class, and work for 
a better future.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the middle class, and support Mr. 
LaTourette and Mr. Costello's amendment--for the benefit of the 
American worker, and the hope of a renewed American middle class.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H2203]]

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


           Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS FOR BURKE 
                   LAKEFRONT AIRPORT.

       Notwithstanding section 521 of title V of division F of 
     Public Law 108-199 (118 Stat. 343) and any restriction in 
     Federal Aviation Administration Flight Data Center Notice to 
     Airmen 9/5151, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may not prohibit or impose airspace 
     restrictions with respect to an air show or other aerial 
     event located at the Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland, 
     Ohio, due to an event at a stadium or other venue occurring 
     at the same time, except that the Administrator may prohibit 
     any aircraft from flying directly over the applicable stadium 
     or other venue.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which 
deals with a TFR, a temporary flight restriction, that complicates 
things at the air show in Cleveland. There are actually several air 
shows that this is a problem with, but the Cleveland Air Show happens 
to be the worst one.
  The reason I am doing it is because I do a lot of air shows and fly 
in a lot of air shows, and I am intimately familiar with how the TFRs 
work. The problem we've had in the past is when the Cleveland Indians 
play at Jacobs Field, there is a stadium TFR right now, which is a 
temporary flight restriction for any stadium with a game going on, 
whether it's football, baseball, whatever. That TFR is 3\1/2\ miles in 
radius and 3,000-feet deep.
  Well, with the airport so close to the stadium, if there is a rain-
delay game that is postponed and rescheduled and you have the air show 
in Cleveland, which is one of the most historic air shows around the 
country, it completely eliminates that air show. The irony is that the 
stadium there, the Cleveland Indians' stadium, only seats 43,000 
people; and there are 90,000 people at the air show. So it creates a 
problem.
  What I am trying to do is clarify and allow the air show to go on 
when there is a game going on. Now, here is the irony. This is the most 
important part. There is what we call an air show TFR, temporary flight 
restriction. It's more restrictive than a stadium TFR. In fact, an air 
show flight restriction is 5 miles in radius, and it's 12,000-feet 
deep. It completely encompasses the stadium TFR. So if there is a game 
going on at the same time as an air show, they are still going to be 
completely protected, and it is going to be completely encompassed 
within that TFR, and they can both proceed. If, for some reason, the 
air show ends early and the game is still going on, then it will 
immediately revert back to the stadium TFR, and everybody is happy, and 
we move forward. There is never a single point in time when there is no 
protection over that stadium. It has always been a problem, and we are 
just trying to clarify so the people of Cleveland can continue to do 
the air show.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. We have reviewed the amendment on this side. We feel it is 
a limited and well-reasoned exception to the rule. Therefore, I would 
support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I am in opposition or 
not, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman very much. As a Congressman from 
the Cleveland area, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Graves) for pointing out the importance of making this change so that 
we can continue to have the air show at the same time that we have 
these major sporting events going on.
  What most people may not understand, in Cleveland we have a lake-
front airport that is a relatively short distance from our football 
stadium, and it's also not that far away from our baseball stadium. So 
it's important for this great event, which is the air show, to be able 
to get the cooperation from all Federal authorities so that we can 
proceed with it.

                              {time}  1950

  This is one of the major events of the end of summer in Cleveland. 
And we're very proud of the airshow. It's a Cleveland tradition that 
goes back many, many years. And I would hope to have the support of 
Members of both sides of the aisle.
  And I want to thank my good friend for helping to take the initiative 
on this because I think this is something that, hopefully, we'll all be 
able to agree on.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, again, I know there's a lot of 
confusion out there, and I hope there's staff listening and there are 
Members listening in their offices.
  Again, the Cleveland Air Show, I fly a lot of air shows, and this is 
one of my favorite air shows. And it's an extraordinary aviation 
community because it used to be home to the Cleveland air races. And 
again, this never, at any time, lessens security one bit. In fact, it 
makes security stronger because the TFR around an airshow is even 
tighter than a normal TFR. It's bigger, it's deeper, and you can't even 
turn a prop without getting permission during an airshow while it's 
going on. So there will never ever be a time that this stadium is not 
underneath the TFR.
  I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. I'm being 
straight up on this thing. It's a problem, and we need to fix it. So 
there's no reason why two events can't go on at the same time, if that 
ever is a problem. And it has been in the past. We just don't want it 
to be in the future.
  Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. I'm just wondering if the gentleman has consulted with 
TSA or Department of Homeland Security or FBI, the various agencies 
that were concerned about safety at such sports events following 9/11 
and for which many of the stadiums and sponsors of these sports events 
have instituted and spent millions of dollars in safety who have 
legitimate concerns that one attack may make it all for naught.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. We did not contact the FBI. But we did 
contact Homeland Security. Homeland Security did not get a response 
back to us. However, and I've provided to the ranking member of the 
Aviation Subcommittee the response from the FAA--they took no position. 
And we still leave that authority to them. They can still, if they 
think it needs to be more restrictive, they can do that. So I didn't 
want to take that completely away.
  I think probably the biggest problem is I think that sports 
authorities didn't realize there are TFRs associated with an airshow 
which are actually even more restrictive and bigger. So the best thing 
you could do is have an airshow next to your game. You're going to have 
a better TFR, I guess the irony is.
  Mr. RAHALL. Because the gentleman is aware of a letter we've received 
from the major sports organizations, Major League Baseball and the 
National Football League, the NCAA, expressing their opposition to your 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Yes, and again I think it's just simply 
because they don't realize there's still a TFR there. And I probably 
should have done a better job of explaining that. If in the future it 
becomes a problem, I want there to be good security. I'd be more than 
willing to work something out.

[[Page H2204]]

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I think I just heard what I was looking for 
in the gentleman's concluding comments there, that he's willing to work 
with anybody that has these legitimate safety concerns in order to make 
sure that everything is clear on this going forward.
  Mr. KUCINICH. If the gentleman will yield, I would be pleased to work 
with both of those gentlemen to make sure that we cover all the safety 
concerns that are expressed.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. SANTA MONICA AIRPORT, CALIFORNIA.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration should enter into good faith 
     discussions with the city of Santa Monica, California, to 
     achieve runway safety area solutions consistent with Federal 
     Aviation Administration design guidelines to address safety 
     concerns at Santa Monica Airport.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Santa Monica Airport is a unique general 
aviation facility located in my congressional district. Each end of the 
bidirectional runway is abutted by steep hills, public streets, and 
densely populated neighborhoods, with homes as close as 250 feet. The 
airport has no runway safety areas. If a plane overshot the runway or 
failed to lift off upon departure, it could easily land in the 
neighborhood.
  The amendment I offer today is simple and straightforward. It urges 
the FAA to continue its discussion with the city of Santa Monica to 
identify a meaningful solution to address serious safety concerns at 
the Santa Monica Airport.
  For nearly a decade, I've joined the community, the city of Santa 
Monica and the Airport Administration to push the FAA to address this 
serious safety gap. While the FAA has had discussions with the city and 
presented a runway safety proposal, its response has simply fallen 
short. The FAA has acknowledged that its proposal is both insufficient 
to stop larger jets from an overrun and inadequate to prevent 
overshoots involving smaller planes.
  My constituents and the pilots and passengers who use Santa Monica 
Airport deserve better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this 
to our attention and for bringing his amendment to the floor. It has 
our total support as well.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Shuster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 8__ ISSUING REGULATIONS.

       Section 106(f)(3)(A) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' before the first sentence; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Before proposing or issuing a regulation, the 
     Administrator shall:

       ``(I) Analyze the different industry segments and tailor 
     any regulations to the characteristics of each separate 
     segment (as determined by the Administrator), taking into 
     account that the United States aviation industry is composed 
     of different segments, with differing operational 
     characteristics.
       ``(II) Perform the following analyses for each industry 
     segment:

       ``(aa) Identify and assess the alternative forms of 
     regulation and, to the extent feasible, specify performance 
     objectives, rather than a specific means of compliance.
       ``(bb) Assess the costs and benefits and propose or adopt a 
     regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the 
     benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
       ``(cc) Ensure that the proposed regulation is based on the 
     best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, and other 
     information relating to the need for, and consequences of, 
     the regulation.
       ``(dd) Assess any adverse effects on the efficient 
     functioning of the economy, private markets (including 
     productivity, employment, and competitiveness) together with 
     a quantification of such costs.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. This 
amendment is composed of two parts, both of which deal with making 
improvements to the process of issuing Federal Aviation Administration 
regulations.
  The amendment is an effort to improve rulemaking at the FAA by 
requiring the agency to meet fundamental rulemaking principles.
  Directing the FAA to meet these standards will ensure that 
regulations protect the critical importance of aviation safety while 
also considering issues of economic competitiveness.
  The first part, the ``one size does not fit all'' part of the 
amendment, requires the FAA to recognize that the United States 
aviation industry is composed of a variety of different segments with 
different operating characteristics.
  Therefore, before proposing or issuing a regulation, the FAA 
Administrator must analyze the different industry segments and tailor 
any regulations to the characteristics of separate segments. The 
definition of industry segments is left to the administrator.
  The FAA Administrator, Randy Babbitt, has pointed out that a ``one 
size fits all'' approach does not work. In 2009, Administrator Babbitt 
said, ``In rulemaking, not only does one size not fit all, but it's 
unsafe to think it can.''
  This amendment attempts to fulfill that objective.
  The second part fulfills President Obama's goals of regulatory 
reform. The second part ensures that the proposed regulations are not 
overly burdensome or cumbersome by requiring the FAA to conduct 
rulemakings in accordance with certain principles. First, a reasoned 
cost and benefit analysis, second, an assessment of the impact on the 
economy, and third, extremely important that the regulation is based on 
the best available science and technical information.
  Let me be clear that my intent is not to single out or gut any 
particular regulation or proposed regulation. This amendment does not 
define industry segments. We allow the FAA Administrator to interpret 
and appropriately define what industry segments are.
  It does not require that the cost benefits analysis be the reason for 
a rule, a reasoned analysis.
  Additionally, the amendment is not retroactive.
  Finally, I understand that there may be concerns that the language 
could apply to ongoing rulemakings. That's not my intent for this 
amendment to apply to ongoing rulemaking, such as those regarding pilot 
flight and duty time.

                              {time}  2000

  The Transportation Committee has worked hard to address the important

[[Page H2205]]

safety concerns in a bipartisan manner. And if there are concerns with 
the language, we certainly want to make sure we clear that up.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COSTELLO. This amendment would impose new legislative 
requirements on the FAA's ability to propose or issue regulations. Many 
of the proposed requirements are redundant and are already required by 
existing law in Executive orders.
  For example, the FAA is already required to consider the cost and 
benefits of regulations and to base its regulation on scientific and 
technical information. Other requirements, such as forcing the FAA to 
tailor regulations for each industry's segment, could seriously 
undermine efforts to achieve one level of safety in aviation and delay 
important safety improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, last Congress, the House Aviation Subcommittee 
conducted extensive aviation safety oversight, including numerous 
hearings stemming from the February 2009 Colgan Flight 3407 tragedy. 
These hearings did not reveal a pattern of arbitrary or draconian rules 
imposed by the FAA on the aviation industry. Rather, they revealed a 
pattern of the industry's resistance to proposed safety regulations, 
many of which resulted from extensive accident investigations and 
which, nonetheless, languished for years.
  The Flight 3407 families who tragically lost their loved ones 2 years 
ago in Buffalo, New York, were instrumental in the adoption of H.R. 
5900, and they continue to monitor the implementation of this important 
law, holding industry's feet and the FAA's feet to the fire. They are 
opposed to this amendment because they are also concerned about the 
adverse impact it would have on the current FAA rulemaking on pilot 
fatigue.
  Earlier today, Captain Sully Sullenberger, the former U.S. Air 
captain who safely landed in the Hudson River 2 years ago after a flock 
of geese damaged both his plane's engines, said he was extremely 
concerned that the Shuster amendment will prevent critical safety 
regulations from being implemented.
  This amendment is not needed. It purports to fix a system that is not 
broken. At best, it is redundant; at worst, it will delay necessary 
rulemakings, including those on 84 open NTSB recommendations, to the 
detriment of the flying public.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I understand this amendment has stirred a certain amount 
of controversy. I have worked with Chairman Costello on the underlying 
bill that seeks to improve safety and deal with the tragedy, some of 
which caused the Colgan crash.
  We have been talking to the FAA. There is a disagreement about the 
impact of this amendment, frankly, because they indicate that this is 
more or less in line with their understanding of the underlying law and 
the procedures they intend to follow going forward and really merely 
clarifies it. And if that is the gentleman's intent, it seems 
reasonable that one take into account different circumstances to 
maximize safety under changing conditions in different segments of the 
aviation industry.
  I certainly do not favor weakening safety, but I do favor 
strengthening it in relation to differing circumstances that exist. 
Whether it is emergency aviation or whether it is military aviation or 
commuter aviation or general aviation, there are some factors that may 
be reasonable to take into account to maximize safety. I understand or 
believe that is the author's intention, though others clearly differ 
with me at this point.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and that is 
my intent. In fact, the Executive order, which does have some of this 
already in it, cannot have judicial review. So this will strengthen the 
position for people who have judicial review to be able to enforce it. 
Again, currently, the Executive order doesn't have it in it. So I 
believe this is going to strengthen it.
  I want safety. Randy Babbitt, who is now the FAA administrator and 
former president of the ALPA, the Air Line Pilot's Association, has 
said one size fits all doesn't fit all.
  So, again, I think this is going to strengthen the position as we 
move forward with these rulings. So I would urge the gentleman, if 
there is something we can do to clear this up a little bit, I am happy 
to listen to him.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, there is no question, at least from legal 
counsel that we have talked to, that it would absolutely affect current 
regulations and those that are pending right now under consideration.
  So I would ask the gentleman--I believe I understand his intent--if 
he would consider withdrawing the amendment, working with the chairman 
of the full committee and subcommittee, myself and Mr. Rahall, as we go 
into conference.
  I yield to the gentleman for an answer.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman.
  That is my intent is to strengthen this. Again, I think this does 
strengthen the law because it will give it judicial review. So at this 
point I am not willing to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman, and we continue to strongly 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
believe we are going to strengthen the rulemaking process and make the 
skies and aviation travel even safer than it is today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose the amendment. We 
believe that it will add additional red tape, and there is no evidence 
at all that the FAA regulations--our history, in fact--favor anyone, 
other than there has been a reluctance on the part of the industry to 
comply with regulations. What this will do is drag it out even further 
and have a negative effect on those pending regulations as well as the 
existing ones. So we continue to oppose.
  I will be happy to work with the gentleman. I know he has good 
intentions, and I will be happy to work with him, but would continue to 
oppose and urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 112-46.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON PARTICIPATION IN FAA 
                   PROGRAMS BY DISADVANTAGED SMALL BUSINESS 
                   CONCERNS.

       (a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2011 through 
     2014, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     number of new small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, 
     including those owned by veterans, that participated in the 
     programs and activities funded using the amounts made 
     available under this Act.
       (b) New Small Business Concerns.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), a new small business concern is a small 
     business concern that did not participate in the programs and 
     activities described in subsection (a) in a previous fiscal 
     year.

[[Page H2206]]

       (c) Contents.--The report shall include--
       (1) a list of the top 25 and bottom 25 large and medium hub 
     airports in terms of providing opportunities for small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals to participate in the 
     programs and activities funded using the amounts made 
     available under this Act;
       (2) the results of an assessment, to be conducted by the 
     Inspector General, on the reasons why the top airports have 
     been successful in providing such opportunities; and
       (3) recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and Congress on methods for other 
     airports to achieve results similar to those of the top 
     airports.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is fairly straightforward. We all understand that small 
businesses are critical to the economic vitality of our communities and 
of the Nation. Small businesses, however, face many obstacles in trying 
to win Federal contracts, especially for transportation and 
infrastructure projects. For certain small businesses, those led by 
minorities, women, and veterans, the barriers to competing for 
federally funded contracts are even steeper, and for many years now 
Federal transportation legislation has included language to help these 
businesses even get in the door much less compete for and win these 
contracts.
  I would submit to you that this is very noncontroversial. There are 
no quotas. There is no spending.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. And if I 
might take this occasion to be one of the first to wish her a happy 
birthday. A big milestone is coming up very shortly, and I congratulate 
you on reaching it.
  We have reviewed your amendment on this side of the aisle, and we 
agree with you. We feel it is an important amendment and support it.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  This bill, as I understand it, will authorize $47.5 billion over the 
next 4 years to improve our Nation's aviation system; and we all want 
small businesses to be able to fairly compete for that piece of the 
pie, because we know they can.
  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, the ranking member.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her 
for her diligent work on this issue and for bringing her amendment to 
the floor of the House. It is all about fairness, and I rise in support 
as well.

                              {time}  2010

  Ms. MOORE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT DOCUMENTS.

       (a) Preservation of Documents.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall take such actions as the Administrator 
     determines necessary to preserve original aircraft type 
     certificate engineering and technical data in the possession 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration related to--
       (A) approved aircraft type certificate numbers ATC 1 
     through ATC 713; and
       (B) Group-2 approved aircraft type certificate numbers 2-1 
     through 2-554.
       (2) Revision of order.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall revise 
     FAA Order 1350.15C, Item Number 8110. Such revision shall 
     prohibit the destruction of the historical aircraft documents 
     identified in paragraph (1).
       (3) Consultation.--The Administrator may carry out 
     paragraph (1) in consultation with the Archivist of the 
     United States and the Administrator of General Services.
       (b) Availability of Documents.--
       (1) Freedom of information act requests.--The Administrator 
     shall make the documents to be preserved under subsection 
     (a)(1) available to a person--
       (A) upon receipt of a request made by the person pursuant 
     to section 552 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) subject to a prohibition on use of the documents for 
     commercial purposes.
       (2) Trade secrets, commercial, and financial information.--
     Section 552(b)(4) of such title shall not apply to requests 
     for documents to be made available pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (c) Holder of Type Certificate.--
       (1) Rights of holder.--Nothing in this section shall affect 
     the rights of a holder or owner of a type certificate 
     identified in subsection (a)(1), nor require the holder or 
     owner to provide, surrender, or preserve any original or 
     duplicate engineering or technical data to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, a person, or the public.
       (2) Liability.--There shall be no liability on the part of, 
     and no cause of action of any nature shall arise against, a 
     holder of a type certificate, its authorized representative, 
     its agents, or its employees, or any firm, person, 
     corporation, or insurer related to the type certificate data 
     and documents identified in subsection (a)(1).
       (3) Airworthiness.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the holder of a type certificate identified in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall not be responsible for any continued 
     airworthiness or Federal Aviation Administration regulatory 
     requirements to the type certificate data and documents 
     identified in subsection (a)(1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an 
amendment which I call the Herrick amendment, named for the gentleman 
who brought the matter to my attention, a restorer of old aircraft.
  This amendment requires the FAA to preserve original aircraft 
engineering data in the agency's possession. You can kind of think of 
this as blueprints of our Nation's very earliest aircraft. It extends 
for the time from 1927 to 1939, 1927 being the very first typed 
certificate that was ever issued by the CEA at that time, the FAA now.
  Right now, the FAA is currently authorized to destroy that data. In 
my opinion, this destruction represents the disappearance of very 
detailed documentation surrounding the golden age of aviation. In some 
cases this data is converted to a CD or is converted digitally.
  What happens is the FAA policy then requires the agency to destroy 
the original documents. In the world of aviation, to those of us who 
are very close to aviation, this would be comparable to making a copy 
of the Declaration of Independence and then destroying the original. It 
is unclear how much of this original data exists, which is all the more 
reason why I think we need to preserve it, to find out how much is 
there.
  What my amendment does is it simply requires the FAA to preserve 
original aircraft engineering data in the agency's possession of 
aircraft from 1927 to 1939. It requires the FAA to revise the order 
which provides them authority to destroy this data. The revision would 
prohibit such destruction. And it makes the documentation to be 
preserved under this act available to the public upon a Freedom of 
Information Act request, subject to a prohibition on using the 
documents for commercial purposes.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. We have reviewed the amendment and are supportive of it. 
The people who are concerned about vintage airplanes, I know EAA that I 
represent, one of the largest, if not the largest, association of 
general aviation enthusiasts, feels this is very important. We would 
like to work with you to perfect the amendment. But my understanding is 
the FAA and others also support its intent.
  Mr. MICA. 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

[[Page H2207]]

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.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response 
to that, I can guarantee you that this is my last amendment, for this 
particular bill at least.
  Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will yield, the chairman and I have 
finally found something we agree upon. I agree as well.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. I would close with that, Mr. Chairman, yield 
back the balance of my time, and urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Release From Restrictions.--Notwithstanding section 16 
     of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect on August 4, 1982) 
     or sections 47125 and 47153 of title 49, United States Code, 
     the Secretary of Transportation is authorized, subject to 
     subsection (b), to grant releases from any of the terms, 
     conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in the 
     deed of conveyance numbered 30-82-0048 and dated August 4, 
     1982, under which the United States conveyed certain land to 
     Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for airport purposes.
       (b) Conditions.--Any release granted by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) The County shall agree that in conveying any interest 
     in the land that the United States conveyed to the County by 
     the deed described in subsection (a), the County shall 
     receive an amount for the interest that is equal to the fair 
     market value.
       (2) Any amount received by the County for the conveyance 
     shall be used by the County for the development, improvement, 
     operation, or maintenance of the airport.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is at the request of the local county, Dona Ana 
County, in New Mexico. They have land which alternates with a private 
investor. They are simply asking that 7.35 acres be given to them and 
they would in turn give up 8.41 acres to this private company. Then the 
private company would also give a road to the airport that they are 
desiring.
  This land swap is by the mutual agreement of all parties concerned. 
The FAA has no objections to the transaction. The appraised value is 
somewhat different, but the developing group is offering to pay for a 
road in an equal amount to where the two amounts would be equal, so 
there is no effective difference.
  I would confirm to the chairman of the committee that this is my last 
amendment also, if that is what it takes to get people to agree to it.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. We have reviewed your amendment and feel that it is a 
reasonable and important amendment. We support it and urge a ``yes'' 
vote on your amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First I want to read through the rules of the House and what I 
understand is a congressional earmark. Under clause 9 of rule XXI, a 
congressional earmark is defined as a provision included at the request 
of a Member authorizing or recommending spending authority for an 
entity or targeted to a specific locality or congressional district.
  The amendment before us qualifies as a congressional earmark. The 
gentleman from New Mexico specifically is requesting the provision.
  In addition, the amendment authorizes spending authority for Dona Ana 
County, New Mexico. Subsection (b)(2) states: ``Any amount received by 
the County for the conveyance,'' which clearly contemplates the county 
receiving funding pursuant to this provision. Therefore, the amendment 
qualifies as a congressional earmark under clause 9 of rule XXI.
  Moreover, under clause 17 of rule XXII of the rules of the House 
regarding Members' Code of Conduct, a Member requesting a congressional 
earmark must provide a written statement to the chair and ranking 
member certifying that neither the Member nor his spouse has a 
financial interest in the earmark. I don't question that at all here, 
but I am just saying what the rules are.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rule waives all points of order 
against the amendment. However, is there any way to ensure that the 
gentleman from New Mexico files the appropriate financial disclosure 
certification with the Committee on T required under clause 17 of 
rule XXII?
  These disclosure requirements were included in the House rules in the 
110th Congress under the Democratic majority. They have served the 
House well. Merely what I am trying to do is ensure that the sunshine 
provisions continue to be the standard of the House.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Since there is no money actually changing hands, there is 
not any value changing hands, it appears that the rule that the 
gentleman refers to is not invoked.
  I am reading clause 9, section (e), which says for purposes of this 
clause, the term congressional earmark means a provision in the report 
language included primarily at the request of a Member providing, 
authorizing, recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
authority, which this does not do, credit authority, which this does 
not do, or other spending authority, which this does not do, for a 
contract, which this does not do, a loan, which this does not do, loan 
guarantee, which this does not do, grant, which this does not do, loan 
authority, which this does not do, or other expenditure with or to an 
entity or targeted to a specific State, locality or congressional 
district.
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's last sentence of his 
amendment says: ``Any amount received by the county for the conveyance 
shall be used by the county for the development, improvement, operation 
or maintenance of the airport.'' So it does seem there is some transfer 
of value here or some monetary, or if not monetary, some value of some 
sort that is being conveyed to the county.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. PEARCE. The amounts that are involved are equivalent. There is no 
difference. So I think that's just clearing language in the bill. It's 
not like any value is moving either direction or the other. That has 
been ascertained by the appraisals. There is an equivalent difference 
in land but then the company that is giving up land at the request of 
the local county has agreed to pave a road on the airport for the 
county that would make up the difference. And that value has been 
ascertained also to be in the amount of about $143,830 in order to make 
the two transactions equivalent.
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, what is the value the Federal 
Government is getting here?
  Mr. PEARCE. In our view, there is no value lost or gained in either 
direction
  Mr. RAHALL. Except toward the county.
  Mr. PEARCE. No. There's no loss to the county--no loss or no gain to 
the county. There are 7 acres that are in triangular shapes up against 
the county. They're not able to do anything with the airport on that 
side. They're simply asking that these triangular shapes be exchanged 
out so that there is a strip of land that they can develop.

[[Page H2208]]

There is no difference in value to either the county or to the company.
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, I raise these questions, Mr. 
Chairman, because what looks like an earmark, walks like an earmark, 
smells like an earmark, must be an earmark.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate the points that the ranking member has 
brought up. Of course, I share his concern in deep disregard for 
earmarks. We would never do anything which either compromised his 
values concerning earmarks, nor mine. We feel like the entire 
transaction is transparent. It's one which was requested by the local 
county at the expense of the local company. And so, to me, the Rules 
Committee has said that this amendment would be made in order; that it 
did not offend any provision of the rules of this House, nor did it 
offend any of the germaneness regarding the underlying bill. So we 
gladly pursue this, and would request a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in House 
Report 112-46.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Schiff

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. MANDATORY NIGHTTIME CURFEWS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including any written assurances under section 47107 of 
     title 49, United States Code, an airport sponsor may not be 
     prohibited from, or interfered with, implementing any of the 
     following:
       (1) A total mandatory nighttime curfew for an airport of 
     the sponsor that is described in paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (b).
       (2) A partial mandatory nighttime curfew for an airport of 
     the sponsor that is described in paragraph (2) of subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Covered Airports.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) airports.--An airport described in this 
     paragraph is an airport that--
       (A) had a voluntary curfew in effect for certain aircraft 
     on November 5, 1990; and
       (B) was created by an intergovernmental agreement 
     established pursuant to a State statute enacted before 
     November 5, 1990, that, along with the statute, imposes 
     obligations with respect to noise mitigation.
       (2) Paragraph (2) airports.--An airport described in this 
     paragraph is an airport that--
       (A) had a partial curfew in effect prior to November 5, 
     1990;
       (B) operates under the supervision of a board of airport 
     commissioners that, on January 1, 2010, oversaw operation of 
     3 or more airports, at least 2 of which have airport 
     operating certificates pursuant to part 139 of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations; and
       (C) on January 1, 2010, failed to comply with a cumulative 
     noise standard established by a State law for airports in 
     that State.
       (c) Notice Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--At least 90 days before implementing a 
     curfew under subsection (a), an airport sponsor shall provide 
     to airport users and other interested parties reasonable 
     notice of--
       (A) the terms of the curfew; and
       (B) the penalties for violating the curfew.
       (2) Reasonable notice.--An airport sponsor shall be treated 
     as satisfying the requirement of providing reasonable notice 
     under paragraph (1) if the sponsor--
       (A) includes the terms of the curfew and penalties for 
     violating the curfew on the Internet Web site of the sponsor 
     for the applicable airport; and
       (B) provides the terms of the curfew and penalties for 
     violating the curfew to tenants of the sponsor who operate 
     aircraft at the airport, either at their leasehold or the 
     address provided to the airport sponsor for the receipt of 
     notices under their lease.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Total mandatory nighttime curfew.--The term ``total 
     mandatory nighttime curfew'' means a prohibition on all 
     aircraft operations at an airport each night during the 9-
     hour period beginning at 10 p.m.
       (2) Partial mandatory nighttime curfew.--The term ``partial 
     mandatory nighttime curfew'' means a prohibition on certain 
     aircraft operations at an airport each night for not longer 
     than the 9-hour period beginning at 10 p.m.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
that I'm offering along with my southern California colleagues, Mr. 
Sherman and Mr. Berman. This amendment would allow airports that meet 
specific requirements--airports that already had at least a partial 
curfew in effect before the 1990 Airport Noise Control Act, ANCA, to 
implement mandatory nighttime curfews. The amendment defines a 
nighttime curfew as between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and affects only two 
small airports that have partial curfews--or a full curfew, in the case 
of Bob Hope--before the passage of ANCA. It does not intend to open the 
door to any further exemptions from ANCA.
  When Congress enacted ANCA, it intended for the statute to permit 
airports to obtain noise restrictions if they met certain requirements. 
At the time, Congress exempted several airports from the law's 
requirements for FAA approval of new noise rules if they had 
preexisting noise rules in effect to address local noise problems. Both 
airports in southern California that would be affected by this 
amendment have a long history of curfews and were, unfortunately, left 
out of the grandfather provision of ANCA. Our amendment would correct 
this inequity and put those airports on the same footing as other 
airports that had curfews before ANCA's passage. One of the airports 
affected, Bob Hope Airport, was one of the first airports in the 
country to impose a curfew. The Van Nuys Airport also had a partial 
curfew prior to ANCA. The amendment therefore corrects the omission of 
not providing curfews to these airports since they already had a full 
or partial curfew in effect before 1990.
  This amendment is supported by the local airports themselves and has 
the full support of the local congressional delegation. Opponents of 
the amendment contend there's already an established process to 
consider a community's request for a curfew. However, the process was 
designed to be so difficult that in the decades since it was 
established by the FAA, only one airport in the Nation has successfully 
completed an application--Bob Hope Airport--and then it was summarily 
turned down. After spending $7 million and 9 years of effort, the FAA 
rejected Bob Hope's request, erroneously contending that the small 
number of flights impacted by the curfew would impose too great a 
strain on the country's aviation system and too great a cost on users. 
In reality, the FAA approached this process in reverse, beginning with 
the conclusion it wished to reach and working backwards to try and 
justify its result.
  It's also important to note that my colleagues understand the impact 
this amendment will have on aviation in southern California. There will 
be no impact on commercial flights. Commercial airlines do not operate 
out of Van Nuys and commercial airlines already abide by a voluntary 
nighttime curfew at Bob Hope Airport. The impact on general aviation 
will be very limited. About nine flights each night are expected to be 
affected. Because of the FAA's dismissive attitude toward legitimate 
local concerns, it is clear to us that the only way to provide relief 
to the residents in our community is through a legislative action.
  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment. It will correct an omission in the Airport 
Noise Control Act. Local problems require local solutions, not 
solutions imposed by a Federal agency with a predetermined agenda.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICA. 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,

[[Page H2209]]

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.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman and appreciate the time that he 
spent to discuss this issue with us. I would just make a couple of 
points before I yield to my colleague, and that is that this will only 
restore an inequity at the time of ANCA.

                              {time}  2030

  Had ANCA exempted each of the airports that had a curfew in place at 
the time, we wouldn't be here because this problem would have been 
taken care of. So it doesn't really create a precedent that will erode 
the system, destroy the system. What it will say is all airports that 
had a curfew in place should be treated the same way.
  And as a further illustration of the minimal impact it will have, 
both airports support this. And LAX, the major airport in the area, the 
authority that controls LAX also supports this. So the other major 
airport that would be impacted by any potential overflow supports this 
as well. There's uniformity within the airports in our region.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I represent both airports in question. This is a 
principled amendment that deals with all airports that had curfews in 
effect in 1990.
  To say that Burbank should appeal, having spent $9 million on a dead-
end rigged process, is not a sufficient answer. And to say that Van 
Nuys should then go spend $9 million on a process that's obviously 
rigged is not an answer.
  The answer is to adopt this amendment that doesn't cost the Federal 
Government a penny and simply allows the L.A. area to do what every 
stakeholder in the area wants to do. The harsh hand of the Federal 
Government should not prevent local control in this area.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Matheson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. RELEASE FROM RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
     of Transportation is authorized to grant to any airport, 
     city, or county a release from any of the terms, conditions, 
     reservations, or restrictions contained in a deed under which 
     the United States conveyed to the airport, city, or county 
     property for airport purposes pursuant to section 16 of the 
     Federal Airport Act (as in effect on August 28, 1973) or 
     section 23 of the Airport and Airway Development Act.
       (b) Condition.--Any release granted by the Secretary of 
     Transportation pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to 
     the following conditions:
       (1) The applicable airport, city, or county shall agree 
     that in conveying any interest in the property which the 
     United States conveyed to the airport, city, or county, the 
     airport, city, or county will receive an amount for such 
     interest that is equal to its fair market value.
       (2) Any amount received by the airport, city, or county 
     under paragraph (1) shall be used exclusively for the 
     development, improvement, operation, or maintenance of a 
     public airport by the airport, city, or county.
       (3) Any other conditions required by the Secretary and in 
     accordance with title 49, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to stand up and offer 
this bipartisan amendment today, offered by myself and also the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment addresses an interesting problem, and that is, over 
history, at times, the Federal Government has given land to various 
airport authorities--it could be a city, a county, or a State--with a 
reverter clause that the land is no longer used for the purpose in 
which it was given or sold to that airport. Now, I'm not suggesting we 
ignore the reverter clause, but there are circumstances where a 
different airport-related use is proposed for this land but it can't be 
done under the original terms of the sale.
  So our amendment basically says that as long as this land is 
continued to be used for airport purposes, the FAA has the ability to 
ignore the reverter clause, if you will, or adjust the reverter clause 
to allow this land to continue to be used for airport purposes in a 
different manner than it was used before.
  This circumstance exists in various locations around the country. 
This is an issue that has been hanging out for a few years in some of 
our congressional districts, and I'm pleased we have found a way, I 
believe, to address

[[Page H2210]]

what I believe are noncontroversial issues of changing to a different 
type of airport use. So I think it's consistent with the intent of the 
land being given to a city, county, or State or airport authority. This 
remains in the public hands.
  That is the substance of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge 
people to vote for it.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATHESON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
  We have reviewed this amendment. We support the goal that he is 
attempting to achieve. We want to continue working with him, but even 
with its being adopted, because the FAA has raised some concerns, 
mainly that it, as drafted, would capture all airports and would have 
an overly broad effect. But I understand the difficulty that created 
that; so we're trying to figure out if there is some way we can achieve 
the objective which, as best we can tell, is a perfectly reasonable, 
sensible objective within the rules of the House and without causing 
problems in other places that are unintended.
  With those caveats, we support the amendment and look forward to 
working with you as we go forward.
  Mr. MATHESON. I greatly appreciate the comments of my colleague Mr. 
Petri. And, again, I also commit to work with you to refine this to 
make this in the best possible form.
  Mr. PEARCE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATHESON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Thank you.
  I was going to claim time in opposition and then speak in favor of 
the amendment, but we can get this wrapped up a lot quicker if we do it 
this way.
  Basically, I am cosponsoring the amendment with the gentleman. In the 
West the problem is greater, more extensive than the rest of the 
country, but we've got small parcels of land around everywhere that are 
owned by the government. And this is a practical, commonsense measure 
which would help distribute those parcels of land. It requires that the 
value be accorded to the government, to whatever owning agency there 
is. You have to receive fair market value for it, but it gets it out of 
the government's hands and into the hands of either an entity that will 
develop the land or hold it. So it's a commonsense amendment that makes 
for smoother operations downstream, and I would gladly support the 
amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote for the Matheson-Pearce amendment.
  Mr. MATHESON. Reclaiming my time, if no one is going to claim time in 
opposition, I am happy to close.
  Again, I appreciate Mr. Pearce's work on this and I appreciate Mr. 
Petri's ongoing discussions on this. It's been a bipartisan effort. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2040


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Schiff

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from California, Representative Waters, and I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII of the bill, insert the following 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Los Angeles World 
     Airports, the operator of Los Angeles International Airport 
     (LAX)--
       (1) should consult on a regular basis with representatives 
     of the community surrounding the airport regarding--
       (A) the ongoing operations of LAX; and
       (B) plans to expand, modify, or realign LAX facilities; and
       (2) should include in such consultations any organization, 
     the membership of which includes at least 20 individuals who 
     reside within 10 miles of the airport, that notifies Los 
     Angeles World Airports of its desire to be included in such 
     consultations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Earlier this afternoon, we discussed this amendment with 
the principal author, your colleague Ms. Waters. We are prepared to 
accept the amendment. We know it was offered in good faith, and is a 
more restrictive amendment than an earlier one that we'd discussed, so 
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on her amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that, and I know my 
colleague Representative Waters thanks you for that. Let me just 
briefly state for the record a couple of points that my colleague would 
like me to make, and then I'd be happy to yield the balance of my time.
  This amendment states that it is the sense of Congress that Los 
Angeles World Airports, the operator of LA International Airport, LAX, 
should consult on a regular basis with representatives of the community 
surrounding LAX regarding airport operations and plans to expand, 
modify or realign airport facilities.
  LAX, one of the world's busiest airports, is located in 
Representative Waters' congressional district. According to LAWA's Web 
site, LAX is the sixth busiest airport in the world for passengers, and 
it ranks 13th in the world in air cargo tonnage handled. There were 
656,000 takeoffs and landings at LAX in 2006. Unfortunately, each of 
these takeoffs and landings makes noise.
  LAWA is currently in the process of realigning the runways on the 
north side of the airport. Depending upon the runway configuration that 
is chosen, this realignment could have a tremendous impact on the local 
community. Residents of Westchester and Playa del Rey, which are 
located adjacent to the north runways, are strongly opposed to any 
proposal to move the runways farther north, which could force some 
families to leave their homes. Residents of the city of Inglewood and 
the communities of Vermont Knolls and south Los Angeles, which lie to 
the east of LAX, underneath the flight path of the planes that use the 
runways, are concerned that reconfiguration will result in an increase 
in airport noise.
  Some of the people who are most impacted by LAX operations do not 
even benefit from the services that LAX is intended to provide. LAX 
serves people from all across southern California, but many of the 
people who live closest to the airport are low-income who cannot afford 
the benefits of air travel. In communities like Los Angeles, where 
airports are located near residents who can't afford to use them, it is 
all the more important that the airport operators listen to the 
concerns of those residents.
  This is a simple, nonbinding amendment that will not affect other 
airports. I thank the chairman for his support, and urge my colleagues 
to support this as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 256, after line 9, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 814. DEVELOPMENT OF AEROTROPOLIS ZONES AROUND AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may establish a program in support of the 
     development of aerotropolis zones around medium and large hub 
     airports.
       (b) Demonstration Projects.--Under the program, the 
     Administrator may carry out demonstration projects in not 
     more than 5 locations. In selecting such locations, the 
     Administrator shall seek a mix of medium and large hub 
     airports.
       (c) Activities.--In carrying out a project with respect to 
     an airport under the program, the Administrator shall 
     undertake activities designed to--

[[Page H2211]]

       (1) encourage freight and passenger rail companies to 
     support the development of those facilities at or near the 
     airport to reduce congestion and improve the flow of freight 
     and passengers to and through the airport;
       (2) reduce traffic congestion on roadways serving the 
     airport to improve the flow of passengers and freight to and 
     through the airport; and
       (3) integrate airport planning and development efforts with 
     businesses and municipalities located near the airport to 
     maximize economic development opportunities that rely on the 
     airport as a transportation hub.
       (d) Reports.--If the Administrator decides not to carry out 
     demonstration projects under the program in a fiscal year, 
     the Administrator, on or before the last day of that fiscal 
     year, shall submit to Congress a report containing an 
     explanation for the Administrator's decision.
       (e) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014, 
     the Administrator may use amounts made available under 
     section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, for 
     operations of the Federal Aviation Administration to carry 
     out this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, this amendment encourages the development of 
aerotropolis transportation zones.
  Let me start out by congratulating and thanking the committee for 
including the Cohen amendment in the underlying bill, which would 
direct the FAA to adopt policies that encourage the development of 
aerotropolis transportation zones.
  I mean, no airport exists in isolation. There are cases where 
targeted investments in the intermodal transportation system would 
significantly benefit the airport and make it more profitable, and all 
other users would need to think about how to do that in the future and 
make these airports the hubs of their activities.
  I so appreciate Mr. Cohen's leadership on this, and recognize the 
value in his new way of looking at our Nation's airports and the value 
that that brings to us.
  My amendment goes one step further by giving the administration 
explicit authority to participate in helping to fund aerotropolis 
projects that he finds would significantly benefit the participating 
airport. It builds on Mr. Cohen's efforts by making it clear that the 
administrator can authorize demonstration projects but only if an 
airport authority makes a convincing case that it has a project that 
will result in clear benefits to the airport.
  Now, a little birdie told me that there will be some objection to 
this proposal based on the supposition that I'm arguing for a sudden 
shift in airport funding to be used for other transportation modes. No, 
no, no. That's not what I'm trying to do. I recognize that airports 
have a unique need and deserve a sustainable and dedicated stream of 
funding. What I am saying is, as to that same funding stream, when 
there are times that intermodal transportation will benefit an 
airport--maybe bring it back to life and increase profits for it--we 
should look at it.
  I wish my colleague from Memphis, Tennessee, were here, but just let 
me tell you a little bit about my district, Mr. Chairman.
  I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Our airport is only 90 miles from 
O'Hare, a global network. The deepest part of Lake Michigan, our port, 
is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We have lots of parcels of land available 
for trucking and storage. Our Governor, our very popular Governor, 
Scott Walker, who just turned down $810 million for high-speed rail, 
now wants $150 million to improve the Hiawatha between Chicago and 
Milwaukee. We're only 90 miles from O'Hare, which is overcrowded. So I 
think the aerotropolis concept could improve the profitability of that 
airport.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Ms. MOORE. I would like to yield some time to my good friend, the 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for yielding.
  I do rise in support of her amendment, which would allow the FAA to 
conduct demonstration projects in support of aerotropolis zones around 
airports. These zones would encourage compatible land uses around 
airports. They would also facilitate transportation projects that would 
improve airport access and reduce congestion.
  These projects would not be required, but this amendment would give 
the FAA the flexibility to encourage the development of aerotropolises 
around our Nation's airports, which would be for the benefit of the 
flying public and local economies.
  I commend the gentlelady on her amendment.
  Ms. MOORE. In reclaiming my time, I would just say I really 
appreciate the generous offer of the gentleman, the chair of the 
committee, to work with me on it. I think a demonstration project would 
have accorded us an opportunity to show you this, but I am sure that 
this is so profitable that many places, like Milwaukee, will continue 
to work on this.
  So I would be willing to withdraw this amendment at this time if you 
would be willing to work with me toward improving the language and 
process through which this could be realized.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to second 
the comments he's made about the fairness on both sides of the aisle. I 
think the chairman has been particularly fair and, as stated, is 
willing to work with so many Members on amendments, whether he has 
accepted them today or not.
  I also commend the staffs on both sides for their hard work. Mr. 
Petri, I commend his leadership, and Mr. Costello as well on my side of 
the aisle. And let's all hope this is the last time we go through this 
this year on this bill.

[[Page H2212]]

  Mr. MICA. 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.
  Ms. MOORE. I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in House Report 112-46.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 658) 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________