[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10163-H10170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2115, VISION 
              100--CENTURY OF AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 422

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 422 
is a rule providing for consideration of the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 2115, the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I would briefly remind this Congress of the essential 
authorizations provided through this bill. First and foremost, the 
legislation reauthorizes the FAA for 4 years and $3.4 billion in fiscal 
2004, increasing by $100 million each year thereafter. The FAA is, of 
course, primarily responsible for the safety of the Nation's skies 
through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic 
controllers to the development of new airspace technologies.
  The district that I am honored to represent contains Miami 
International Airport, consistently one of

[[Page H10164]]

the Nation's busiest, both for international and domestic travel. I am 
always impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between 
such organizations as the FAA and Miami International. This cooperation 
is evident, as well, through many provisions in this legislation, for 
example, $500 million for airport security improvements at airports; 
grants and tax credits for low emissions; compensation to general 
aviation for losses from security mandates; and war risk insurance to 
the airlines through March 30, 2008.
  This Congress was quick to assist airlines after the tragedy of 9-11, 
and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movement of people 
and goods the airlines provide obviously demanded our attention. 
However, we must also consider those smaller aircraft which were 
restricted for months. Accordingly, this Congress will act through the 
underlying legislation to help general aviation return to financial 
stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their 
business. This bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators 
that were greatly affected by increased security restrictions.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for their extraordinary 
leadership on this important reauthorization, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this important rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote it down. Just when I think I have seen everything, 
the Republican leadership comes up with a new surprise. We are seeing 
appropriation bills that no one can amend. We have seen huge 
multibillion dollar omnibus spending bills being written in secret and 
shoved through the House. We have seen twisted arms and broken 
promises. But tomorrow is Halloween and the leadership has come up with 
a brand-new trick: the invisible conference committee.
  As everyone knows, just 2 days ago, the Republican leadership, after 
nearly 5 weeks of delay, finally brought up a rule to send the 
seriously flawed FAA conference report back to the conference 
committee. The House, in a bipartisan way, approved that rule, with the 
hope that the flaws in this bill could be fixed and we could 
reauthorize important aviation and safety programs. Instead, the 
invisible conference committee did not hold a single public meeting, a 
violation of House rules, and did not give Democratic members any 
opportunity for input or amendment. In fact, Democratic members of the 
conference were never even notified that a conference was taking place, 
and they were never notified that a new report was ready until after 
this new conference report was filed.
  Now, I do not even know if Republican members of the conference 
committee met, or if some leadership aide or some lobbyist changed the 
bill himself on the back of a napkin.
  Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous.
  When we shared our concerns with the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules last night, he told us that he understood where we were coming 
from and that he would talk to his leadership about it. With all due 
respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to feel our pain. What we are 
looking for is fairness. Last night, the Committee on Rules Republicans 
could have stood with Democrats and demanded that the House rules and 
procedures be respected. They had their chance to make their actions 
match their rhetoric. But sadly, they chose, once again, to follow 
their leaders, rather than follow the rules.
  Again, this is not an isolated incident; this is part of a continuing 
pattern of disregard for the rules of this House, disregard for other 
points of view, disregard for open debate, disregard for 
bipartisanship, and disregard for the American people.
  As I have said before, I understand that the majority has the 
responsibility to manage the House and that the Committee on Rules can 
be a tool in that effort. But under this Republican leadership, the 
Committee on Rules has become not a tool, but a weapon, a weapon used 
to smother, stifle, and suppress; a weapon used to cover up bad 
behavior and undermine the democratic process.
  These matters, Mr. Speaker, are not just ``inside baseball.'' They 
are matters that directly impact the American people. In this case, the 
conference report for the FAA bill does not just directly contradict 
the expressed bipartisan will of both the House and the Senate; it also 
jeopardizes the safety of the people we represent.
  The bill still allows for the privatization of air traffic control, 
despite the fact that both the House and the Senate voted to prohibit 
privatization. If this provision becomes law, it will begin the 
dismantling of the air traffic control system as we know it.
  We cannot allow our air traffic control system to be farmed out to 
the lowest bidder. Safety must come first, and we cannot do it on the 
cheap.
  A while back, some Republican Members claimed that they opposed 
privatization so strongly that they pledged to vote against the 
conference report. I hope they follow through with that promise today.
  And the bill, Mr. Speaker, still changes antiterrorism training for 
flight crews from mandatory to discretionary. The Homeland Security Act 
of 2002 directed the Transportation Security Administration to issue 
security training guidelines for flight crews. Section 603 of the FAA 
conference report guts this directive in order to give air carriers the 
authority to establish those training requirements at their discretion. 
The TSA has developed the training for Federal flight deck officers and 
the Federal air marshals. It only makes sense that the TSA should be 
responsible for developing the antiterrorism training for flight 
attendants so that there is a coordinated response from the entire 
flight crew in the event of a terrorist attack. To do anything less, 
Mr. Speaker, is to place special interests above passenger safety, and 
that is absolutely unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way the people's House is supposed to 
run. What has happened with this conference report is an outrage and an 
insult, not only to Members of both parties, but to the people we 
represent. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and defeat the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I certainly have not seen it all, but I am learning a lot this 
morning, hearing the debate. Approximately 150 towers were privatized 
during the Clinton years. This legislation does not mandate any 
privatization of towers, and yet trying to reconcile with this reality 
and these facts, what I am hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, in order to elicit some information and 
some facts about what the legislation is doing, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for carrying this load. I had to come 
to this floor because there has been a lot of misunderstanding about 
this legislation.
  All the way through this legislation the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and his staffer, Stacy, were involved in this 
legislation as it passed from the committee and to this House floor. I 
was charged as chairman of the committee to meet with the Senate, and 
it is a two-way street, and the Senate and the House did meet.
  By the way, in this bill, for the other side, the Democrat side, the 
provision included a special rule to maintain the minimum AIP 
entitlement at small airports that had lost passengers. That was the 
gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) piece of legislation. It 
included a sense of Congress on fifth freedom and seventh freedom 
flights. That was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Increase 
the Metropolitan Planning Organization, MPO, participation in airport 
planning

[[Page H10165]]

process; that was the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). A 
requirement to provide additional information to families affected by 
aircraft accidents, that was from the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner). Restrictions on flights to Teterboro Airport, that was the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). Flight attendant 
certification; deadline of issuance of stage 4 noise reduction rule; 
curriculum standards for maintenance technicians; provision on foreign 
repair station security. All of these came from the other side, and 
they are in the bill.
  The conference did meet at the request of the Senate side and, at 
that time, the Democrats offered an amendment to prohibit the FAA from 
contracting out any more air traffic control towers and it lost.

                              {time}  1245

  And it lost. And I have to remind everybody in our bill I protected 
95 percent of the control towers. Sixty-nine could have been contracted 
out; sixty-nine. Under of the Clinton administration 194 were 
contracted out. And no one said a word, privatized and no one said a 
word. I protected 95 percent of it. But because of the misinformation, 
the cry of anguish, now we went back to the old law, existing law, the 
way it existed for the last 10 years. And that is the law we had that 
was stripped out of this provision.
  And, very frankly, I was disappointed that there was nobody signing 
the conference report from the other side. We tried to finalize it 
before it expired, this act itself, and now we are on the floor today. 
And I ask my colleagues, the good in this bill far outweighs what is 
said bad about it. It allows our airports to function. It improves our 
airports, and it improves safety all the way through this legislation.
  I know there has been a lot of disinformation, and, unfortunately, I 
cannot control everything that happens in this House. I wish I could. I 
would like to be given about 20 minutes as a dictator, I would 
straighten everything out. But that will not happen. This is a 
democracy.
  But this, overall, is a good piece of legislation. Yes, I even 
arrived at a solution with the delegation from D.C. and Virginia on the 
slots, an agreement we made. So there are not that many slots requested 
from the Senate. And I prevailed on the House side.
  So I hope with the information that is given us in the debate on the 
rule, and the debate itself, you understand that this bill is, overall, 
a good piece of legislation with the bodies on both sides of the aisle 
having to work together to arrive at a solution.
  Now, we can demagog this more and more; we can rattle on about it 
more and more. But in reality, the legislation before you today should 
become law, and I hope it will be passed on.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the committee.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, has there been a violation of the House 
rules, the rules of this House and the integrity of this House in 
convening the conference on the FAA bill? That is my inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents of the House, a 
conference report must be the product of an actual meeting of the 
managers appointed by the two Houses.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, has that been the case with this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending resolution proposes to waive all 
points of order against the conference report. Members may debate the 
necessity or advisability of doing so.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, so in other words, the Committee on Rules 
made their statement, therefore, that is the answer to the question, 
really. Correct, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will just reiterate what was just 
stated.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: That on 9/11, this public 
system that we have in the United States was able to land 700 planes in 
a very short period of time. They cleared the air in 2 hours. And as 
the ranking member of this committee has stated most eloquently, if the 
control of the national air space and the safety of the traveling 
public is not a governmental function, one has to question what is. And 
I think that sums it up in a nutshell.
  We have had a failure of privatized baggage screening in this 
country, and that is why we moved into the public sector. And while 
those on the opposition would say that this does not, this does not 
advocate privatization, we know what the agenda is down the street, a 
part-timing of the workforce in this country, no question about it, and 
trying to do everything we can to undermine organized labor. My 
colleagues know it and I know it, regardless of where one stands on 
this legislation.
  If one says this has nothing to do with this legislation, then what 
are we debating for? Why did this House vote 418 to 8, which is a 
pretty startling number, 418 to 8, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure voted, they made their decision very clear. And it is an 
absolute abomination that we have taken that vote and tried to strain 
it, cleanse it, to do everything we possibly could to it, to bring back 
to this floor legislation that could have had bipartisan support, that 
did have bipartisan support, in order to divide this Chamber. Division, 
division, division. Because you have in sight your objective, and your 
objective is to part-time the workforce in America. You have not gone 
far enough. And you are afraid to talk head-on to it.
  This is not the end of it. There is going to be more than 
adjournments, it is going to be more than debates. It is a central 
issue in American politics today.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to some of the points 
that have been raised on this particular rule. Having participated in 
the development of this legislation on this conference report, I am 
familiar with some of the details that I think we should, again, 
separate fact from fiction.
  First of all, the conference did meet. I have a copy of the 
transcript of the conference. Let me say, first of all, in the 
development of the bill, I have heard comments about this not being a 
bipartisan effort. I can say that I have been in the Congress for 11 
years. And I was in the minority, and I saw how things operated in an 
oppressed fashion, being part of the minority I said that would never 
happen when I was given the opportunity to be in a leadership position.
  So I conducted more hearings on the reauthorization of AIR-21, FAA 
reauthorization, than we did on AIR-21's original hearings. And I have 
a list of all of the hearings that we conducted. I went into the home 
district of the ranking member and conducted a hearing. I can tell you 
with every single issue in this piece of legislation, the minority was 
consulted.
  The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
just got up and told you that much of this legislation, in fact, is the 
work product of the minority. Opportunities I could not have dreamed of 
when I was in the minority.
  So to say that somehow this has been unfairly conducted, or some 
opportunity not given, is not correct. It is not factual.
  Then we get to the point of the conference. A conference was held and 
the major issue, there has only been one point of contention on this 
legislation from the beginning. That is the question of the contract 
towers. We held a hearing and we had an actual vote on the issue.
  Here is the vote. Here is the transcript. Let me read: ``Mr. 
Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the purpose of a motion, 
I move to adopt the language I have referenced with respect to the 
language of air traffic control privatization and the air traffic 
control tower language.'' There was a vote and they lost.

[[Page H10166]]

  We put in the provision 69 towers. It was done in an open meeting. 
They were given an opportunity for a vote. This is the vote.
  Mr. Speaker at this point I will insert this into the Record.

       Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, if I am recognized for the 
     purpose of a motion, I move to adopt the language I have 
     referenced with respect to the language on air traffic 
     control privatization and the air traffic control tower 
     language.
       Mr. Young. On the House side, all in favor, signify by 
     saying aye.
       All opposed, signify by saying no.
       The noes have it.

  So this was done in fairness.
  Now, I do not remember too many conference reports that have been 
filed and been out there. We filed this the July 24. The conference has 
been out there. And we would have taken this up the week that we left, 
but we did not have time on the floor.
  And in the meantime, NATCA has spent, I am told, I do not know if 
this is accurate, but I am told $6 to $7 million in a campaign of 
disinformation to take this provision out. Now, what we have done is we 
won in an open conference, and now we have recommitted the bill and we 
have agreed to take out the objectionable provision. So we lost. We 
gave again to the side to take out the provision, and they still are 
not happy. They say they are not being treated fairly.
  We had a vote, we had an open conference, and we have taken out the 
issue of contention. All the other issues, every issue, was debated, 
every issue was discussed in hearings. And I have copies of all the 
hearings. I would be glad to have them made part of the Record.
  So, again, the question of unfairness is unfair. Let me say to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who just spoke, and I have the 
greatest respect for the gentleman, the planes that landed September 11 
that the FAA brought down, half the towers in the country, almost half 
the towers in the country, 219 are contract towers. They are supervised 
by the Federal Aviation Administration. They are managed by private 
contractors. So on September 11, those people performed well.
  The issue of the 69 towers, the 69 towers we did not pick out of the 
vacuum, out of the sky to put in the bill to look at for possible 
conversion to contract towers. Those FAA towers were examined in the 
year 2000 by the Inspector General. Not by the CBO, not by some 
partisan group, but by the Inspector General.
  The Inspector General looked at those towers. He compared them in 
2000 and found that the all FAA towers had 2.5 times more safety errors 
than their counterparts, the contract towers. And the cost was 
substantially more.
  This did not satisfy the union, so they asked for another restudy. So 
we asked for a restudy requested by NATCA. They reviewed it in 2002 and 
2003. Here is the report. In the report they said you did not do the 
right comparison. You have to compare the flights, the number of 
flights, hours of operation. So they did that. And they just completed 
that. You know what? An even more exact comparison found, that there is 
five times the error rate in the FAA towers. So they are less safe. And 
they cost, look at it, the report, an average of 12 of them, $917,000 
more to run.
  So, we have taken out the provision that was objectionable to the 
other side, and they still are not happy. This reminds me of that song, 
the Hokie Pokie: You put your right foot in. What else can we do?
  So we are here today, folks, to stop the Hokie Pokie. This is very 
serious because our aviation system depends on it. Our improvements of 
our airports depend on it, and that is in this legislation. The 
security improvements depend on it, and many of our airports are 
lacking those security improvements. They are being held up because 
this bill is not passing.
  Essential air service to our small and rural communities, never 
before have we produced a piece of legislation that will do more to 
expand air service with an aviation system that now has been under such 
duress that we have nursed it back. This will do more of the job to 
create employments and opportunities for all Americans.
  So the argument that we have not given a fair opportunity to the 
other side is bogus. The argument that is trying to be posed here today 
that we somehow did something in the dark, without consultation, here 
is the record. This is the record. We have been fair. We have been 
open. We have even acquiesced to their number one demand and to what 
the union has spent $7 million on in an unprecedented campaign of lies 
and distortion and misinformation, so we can move this legislation 
forward, so we can help our ailing aviation industry.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is the ranking Democrat on the committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful exercise in 
obfuscation.
  The critical thing is that the House voted unanimously to send a 
failed bill, a bill which had inserted privatization into a system that 
no one voted to privatize when the bill passed the House and the Senate 
will taken up and a majority voted to not privatize, and they had a 
press conference and then they brought the bill back. I was supposedly 
a member of that conference committee. There was no conference 
committee. We did not meet. We found out from the press that they had 
reported back the conference.
  The conference in July, which was called in a very hurried way, yes, 
we actually had one meeting. We were to meet again after we had a 
series of votes. We are still waiting for that meeting. The point is, 
suddenly after both the House and the Senate had voted in the interest 
of public health and safety and control of the national air space and 
national security to prohibit the privatization of air traffic control 
of the United States of America, both bodies had voted overwhelmingly 
to not privatize. Suddenly a Senator shows up with an amendment to 
privatize 71 air traffic control towers.
  When asked about it, he said, this was a de minimis sort of 
amendment. The chairman objected, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), because it included Alaska. So suddenly this great principle of 
privatizing 71 was dropped down to 69 like that.
  Here is what the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said recently 
about this: ``My hotel room is on the top floor of the Sheridan and the 
airplanes take right off towards my hotel room. Every morning I look 
out and there is one coming right at me. It is an interesting 
experience and I want to make sure everything is done right in that 
field.''
  So somehow in Alaska, nowhere near as busy as many of the other 
airports in question here, it is not safe to privatize, but somehow it 
is safe to privatize other major facilities. In fact, what the majority 
has done is they took out these 69 airports and they have opened the 
door wide because they have stripped the original exclusion of the 
House and the Senate on privatization from air traffic control from the 
bill entirely.
  So now the President has determined that the air traffic control of 
this country, the control of our air space, the safety of the traveling 
public, is not an inherently governmental function. That is what the 
President has done, reversing an executive order of the previous 
President. That has opened the door to privatize the entire system or, 
worse yet, to fragment it up and cherry-pick out some profitable areas 
to be subcontracted or contracted to Halliburton or others.
  That is what this is all about. We have the most productive and 
safest air traffic control system in the world, bar none. What problem 
are we fixing? We are fixing the problem that nobody is making money on 
it. It is run by the government. That is the problem. We should put 
this on the model of the private security we had at airports before 9/
11.
  Have we so soon forgotten the firms, Argenbright and others, who 
hired and maintained on staff known felons to provide screening at 
airports, paid minimum wage, had a turnover of 140 percent, that would 
be the model for our air traffic control system? They want to cheapen 
it, dummy it down. As one of my colleagues said, rent-a-controller.
  Maybe we can get temporaries. Maybe we could transmit all the data to 
India and have the people there do our aircraft spacing. Come on. This 
is the safest, best run, most efficient system in the world, bar none. 
What problem are you fixing here? You are not

[[Page H10167]]

fixing a problem, unfortunately. You are attempting to open the door 
for someone to make money and to allow the airplanes, perhaps, to 
dictate how the system runs.
  Maybe we can get those planes closer together. We do not really have 
to worry about wake turbulence. Maybe we could taxi them a little 
quicker. We do not really have to worry about collisions on runways. 
Maybe there are other places we could squeeze the system.
  Every one of those things would jeopardize the safety of the American 
public which I put paramount and this bill does not, and this process 
is absolutely corrupt.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart), and I thank the members of the conference committee, and I 
particularly thank the chairman.
  There were some difficulties following the conference committee 
meeting when I was there and others were there. There was a conference 
committee meeting and there was some argument over the 69 towers, and 
the bill before us today corrects that argument.
  Now, what I would like to correct for a second are two facts or two 
statements that I have just heard.
  First of all, this bill is about the safety of the American people 
and a failure to adopt this conference committee would be turning the 
back on the safety of the American people. That is number one.
  Number two is about if you represent a major airport in this country, 
an airport that is gone through the trauma of the post 9/11 period, an 
airport that is now working with the CX 9000 equipment and the other 
equipment we are mandating. This bill puts into statute the conference 
committee report, the reimbursements in law that those airports will 
receive. It removes us from last-minute supplemental appropriations 
with cries for needs of money from airports and the moving of the shell 
game.
  This conference committee report addresses the rural and smaller 
airports in this country. This conference committee report is all about 
safety, notwithstanding what one's policy may have been on the issue 
that took us to the controversy that caused the bringing back of this 
conference report and for it to be rewritten.
  The fact of the matter is it is obfuscation if someone stands here in 
this House and says that this bill continues what has been corrected. 
This bill corrects the deficiency. This bill is an investment in the 
safety of the American people that fly; and a vote against this rule or 
against this bill would be a vote against their safety. So I commend 
the chairman. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I 
commend all the Members of this House who care about the safety of the 
American people, the safety and security of our airports, and the 
continued great aviation industry we have. I urge Members to vote for 
the rule and for the final report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair will notify Members 
that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 
19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), 
who is a member of the committee.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I can identify with the frustration of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) because you really did 
do your job. You have gotten a good bipartisan bill out of committee, 
and I know it because up close there were things that both chairmen 
worked with me on together.
  Their bipartisan bill did not have privatization. It is really hard 
to find out who are the folks that are for privatization because you 
will not find them in the committee, and you will not find them in the 
House and the Senate, and that is who I thought we were. This breaks my 
heart because both chairmen worked so closely with me to get changes in 
this bill that I wanted and some of them were controversial. An example 
is the slots, very controversial.
  I did not get all I wanted, but instead of the proposed 36, it is 
down to 20 and we worked together to get that. I worked with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) because general aviation here had not been reimbursed and 
everybody else had been reimbursed. They said we will work with you and 
they did. There is $100 million in here for the small airports that 
were not reimbursed the way the big airlines were.
  D.C. was hit especially hard because we are not open yet. They worked 
with me on that and there is language in there instructing the 
Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan to open 
to general aviation, including charters, to the airports so that they 
can come in.
  They worked with them on language to get airplanes here, state-of-
the-art airplanes that take more passengers, but they are quieter and 
more fuel efficient. My only regret in this bill for myself is that the 
Metropolitan Airport Authority has to come here to ask for grant funds 
that everybody else gets automatically. Having all of that good stuff 
and it is full of other good stuff for the entire country in here, the 
chairman did not want privatization here. We have privatization messing 
up the bill and causing a huge controversy in this House.
  First, the small airports will be the guinea pigs. The poor 69 
airports they have come and screamed to high heaven. Many of us were 
nervous because we thought after the guinea pigs the rest of us would 
follow. The problem, I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica), is once the language is bare, it leaves the 
impression, and I think that most of us have the impression, that 
anything can be privatized now. It leaves the impression that instead 
of improving the bill, we have gone from bad to worse.
  I know what we went through with security guards. If we believe that 
security guards are inherently governmental, and that is the language 
here, we surely have corrupted the concept if air traffic controllers 
are not governmental. 9/11 changed everything. It is a bright line. We 
are not willing to risk anything in the air.
  We are no longer willing to risk anything in the air. I would defy 
the other side to stand up when I am through and give me an example of 
something that is inherently governmental if air traffic controllers 
are not. After 9/11 we would not leave anything to chance in the air 
space of our country, and the problem with the private sector is they 
are in the business of making money. They have got to cut corners if it 
gets tight. This bill fails the indispensable test of guarding our air 
space as we promised in the post-9/11 period.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is also a member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report which is the subject of the rule 
represents only the second time in modern history that a conference 
report filed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure does 
not include a single Democrat signature. The first time this happened 
was the first conference report on this same bill which subsequently 
had to be recommitted, and this last conference report is no better; 
and we will be back here again because this bill will simply not pass 
the Senate.
  Now, the House rules governing conference committee requires that at 
least one conference committee be held and what that means is that all 
of the conferees, all of the conferees get invited in democracy, my 
friends, in a democracy which we try to promote throughout the world. 
We stand here and resolution after resolution promote it throughout the 
world. We are

[[Page H10168]]

in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan, but here in the greatest democracy in 
the world, Democrats representing 134 million Americans in this country 
through the 206 members of the Democratic Caucus do not get invited to 
a conference to have those Americans' views on this important air 
safety issue.
  That is outrageous and it is the corruption of the process and the 
corruption of the House rules. You are supposed to have a conference 
committee that brings all to the table. Not only did you corrupt the 
House rules and the conference, you corrupted the will of the House 
that voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan manner on this question of 
air privatization of air traffic controllers.
  The House clearly said we do not want rent-a-controllers. The 
chairman of the full committee in the first conference report did not 
want it for Alaska. So if it is not good for Alaska, it is not good for 
any other State of the Nation. I agree with him and his wisdom.
  Also, you corrupt the process when you do not permit the opportunity 
for our colleagues to participate on behalf of those 134 million 
Americans. After September 11 we did not privatize screeners; we 
Federalized them. We federalized them. And on the September 11 day, it 
was these air traffic controllers that brought to the ground hundreds 
and hundreds of planes across the country in a very incredibly short 
period of time in order to ensure the safety of those who were 
traveling on those planes and the safety of all Americans should those 
airplanes be used as they were used in New York and in the Pentagon as 
weapons of mass destruction.
  So let us give to air traffic controllers in a privatized function 
the responsibility for air security as well.

                              {time}  1315

  America cannot afford, in terms of the traveling public's safety once 
they are in the air, to have those airplanes which we have seen can be 
turned into weapons of mass destruction, ultimately be controlled by 
some privatized entity.
  We need to continue to keep it as it is. It is the safest, most 
reliable system in the world. I simply do not know why we are trying to 
undo that, and I certainly do not know what is so terrible about the 
marketplace of ideas that my colleagues cannot have us in the 
conference room and the opportunity to make sure that the rest of 
America knows what they are doing.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I sympathize with my good friends on the other side of the aisle. 
When I arrived in this Congress along with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) 11 years ago, I was in the minority, and I remember what it 
was not to have the votes, the majority of the votes to get one's ideas 
passed and to come into law. So I sympathize when now our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle do not have the majority of the votes, how 
they must feel, but I think it is important that some facts now be put 
on the record, Mr. Speaker.
  This legislation before us mandates no privatization of towers. 
During the years of the Clinton Presidency, approximately 150 such 
towers were privatized. I do not recall my friends protesting, but this 
legislation, which obviously they are complaining about today, mandates 
no such privatization of towers, like we had 150 during the Clinton 
years.
  Despite the fact that we on this side of the aisle have the majority 
of the votes, it is important to point out that in the writing of the 
bill and the original conference report, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle were intimately involved. Many provisions, in fact, were 
included in the bill at the request of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle.
  For example, a special rule to maintain the minimum AIP entitlement 
at small airports that have lost passengers, I am told the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) came forth with that idea.
  A sense of Congress on 5th freedom and 7th freedom flights, I believe 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) brought forth 
that idea.
  An increase in the MPO participation in the airport planning process, 
I believe the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) had that idea.
  Requirement to provide additional information to families affected by 
aircraft accidents, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 
had that idea.
  Restriction on flights at Teterboro airport, I believe the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) had that idea.
  Flight attendant certification, deadline for issuance of Stage 4 
noise reduction rule, curriculum standards for maintenance technicians, 
provision on foreign repair station security, all of these ideas came 
from our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  So it is important for the facts to be known. There is frustration in 
being in the minority. I remember my first term here, but let us not 
negate the facts that in the fairness of the majority, many ideas of 
the minority were included. So I think that is required. I think that 
is required by democracy, respect for the minority, and we see in this 
legislation the fruits of much respect for the minority, but in 
addition to ideas that were brought forth by the minority, there are 
many ideas brought forth, I would say many more, by the majority that 
are very important to the safety of aviation in this country, Mr. 
Speaker, and that is why we must pass this legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time.
  I thank the Speaker and I guess my good friend on the other side of 
the aisle, a good friend of mine, but if I must answer the question 
about our frustration, it is because democracy has been hijacked. The 
simple question is on this FAA reauthorization is why this could not 
have been sent back to the conference committee.
  Right now, without giving further details, we have an incidence on 
this campus dealing with some potential danger. We are living in a new 
climate, Mr. Speaker. We are living where Americans are afraid because 
we suffered through 9/11 and the tragic loss of life. What an outrage 
to suggest that in this climate, we will begin to privatize air traffic 
controllers, the most crucial aspect of flight operation, and to my 
good friend, the 150 privatized that he alleges under the Clinton 
administration, that is wrong. They were not under FAA authorization, 
Mr. Speaker. We are grabbing these from FAA authorization.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, in concluding, we do not have trained 
flight attendants. My colleagues have taken out the language about 
settling the question of 65-year-old pilots.
  This is a bad bill. They have hijacked democracy. We should vote no 
for this, and the other side realizes that it has treated us unfairly. 
This rule should be voted down.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I might consume.
  Just to reiterate, we reiterate some facts that I attempted to bring 
out before. First of all, with regard to the towers privatized, 
airports privatized, during the Clinton administration, about 100 of 
them were former FAA staffed towers. I reiterate again, that in the 
legislation brought forth today, there is mandated no privatization of 
towers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the largest general 
aviation airport in this country, Van Nuys airport, and the million 
people who live in its environs. This bill is designed to selectively 
privatize air traffic control. That is unsafe, and it is inherently 
going to be political.
  The chairman of the committee said, ``my hotel room is on the top 
floor of the Sheraton, and airplanes take off right towards that 
room.'' That is why Alaska was not going to be included in earlier 
drafts of this bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) announced to 
the Aviation Daily that he was going to selectively include and exclude 
airports based upon which political support he needed for the bill. But 
at least the prior drafts of this bill

[[Page H10169]]

represented an open, corrupt, political process for deciding which 
constituents must live with unsafe conditions, that the chairman of the 
committee would not subject himself to.
  This bill [in its final form] provides us with opaque, political 
decision-making, with the White House doing everything [which air 
traffic control towers to privatize] behind closed doors. Vote against 
the rule, and against the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who is the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I am somewhat bemused by the quaint reconstruction of history to 
which we have been treated by the chairman of the subcommittee, 
reconstruction of what took place in the House-Senate conference that 
met for 1 day July 24 and has not met since.
  The gentleman also said there was only one issue, only one amendment 
offered. It was a conceptual amendment that I offered to a concept to 
which we had been treated but for which we did not have paper. And so 
since we did not have, and contrast every conference I have previously 
participated in over 24 years, I offered an amendment in concept, and 
we had a cursory discussion of the subject matter which was to 
reinstate the Senate language, and that was voted down.
  We were notified of votes in the House and in the Senate. The 
conference adjourned with a reference by the chairman of the conference 
that we might meet again, if we could somehow get together, but it was 
urgent and important to get this bill through conference, to the House 
and Senate floor, so that it could be passed before the August recess. 
The reason there was only one subject discussed was that is all that we 
were given time to discuss.
  There are at least four major issues. One, the air traffic control 
privatization which has been said time and again in this Chamber and 
the House voted clearly to prohibit the privatization of the air 
traffic control system; the other body did the same. And yet the 
conference report that appeared the next day, after this very urgent, 
important meeting that we had to conclude the work of the conference 
and never met again that night, magically a document appeared, and the 
item that had been voted on and recorded votes in the House and Senate, 
just disappeared, vanished.
  We never had, in the conference, an opportunity to discuss other 
issues such as mandatory training of flight attendants. We never had an 
opportunity to discuss the cabotage issue in Alaska, and we never had 
an opportunity to discuss the matter that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), the day before yesterday, so forcefully 
brought up on this floor, which was essential air service and requiring 
small communities to pay for air service, never had that discussion in 
that conference, and this document appeared full blown from the head of 
Zeus, magically.
  Why we could not have documentation at the conference 24 hours 
earlier is beyond me, but that did not happen. So then 94 days expired 
without that urgent bill being brought to the House floor, and then 
finally the majority decided that either there were not the votes in 
the Senate or there were not the votes in the House to pass the 
document as reported from the committee of conference. So they came 
back to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules brought a bill 
to the floor. We all voted, recorded vote, unanimous on both sides, 
urged all Members on our side, vote for it.
  This is exactly what we had asked for to go back to conference, and 
we had a gentlemanly discussion about conference and then it did not 
happen.
  That is unprecedented in our committee, and I think an insult to the 
Members of the House, and I take it personally. I have served 40 years 
on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Never have I 
seen this happen. Voices were stifled. I see the gentleman from 
Illinois who presided at the event honoring the previous minority 
leader with the words, The greatest speaker who never was, Mr. Mica, 
who said at that ceremony, I never felt in the minority that I was 
excluded because the rules of the House protect the voice of the 
minority.
  The rules of the House were suppressed, absconded with when they the 
majority failed to reconvene the conference as the rules of the House 
require. That is what is wrong.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, again 
I urge my colleagues to pass the rule. We have tried to be fair in this 
process. I have tried to be fair. There is one issue. I mean we can 
talk about a host of other issues, and in this system of 435 Members, I 
have over 40 Members on the subcommittee. There are over 70 on the full 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We all know that we all 
do not get all of our ways.
  We heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
give a very eloquent reminder of her contributions and our working 
together. This bill does represent 99.9 percent of us working together 
to solve issues and move our aviation industry forward.

                              {time}  1330

  It does boil down to, unfortunately, this one issue that has divided 
us. We have acquiesced to the other side. We did put in 69 towers out 
of the 71 towers identified.
  The two from Alaska, and please do not pick on my chairman, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), he represents an area that is just 
unbelievable. You have to go see Alaska to believe it. It takes 3\1/2\ 
hours by jet from one end of the State to the other. And the two towers 
that were named in this report, first of all, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) has probably more contract towers than any 10 States put 
together, but the two that were mentioned in this, one is being 
converted to a capstone, that is the Juneau, Alaska, tower; and the 
other one, if you go and look at the Anchorage tower, it is quite 
unique. It has a combination of military, private sector, and FAA 
operations. So they really do not fit into this program. And that is 
why that was exempted. But what we have done here is we have taken out 
all 69.
  Now, yes, I offered if anyone wanted to read this report that says 
that a contract tower which is FAA supervised and privately managed is 
4\1/2\ times safer, really it has 4\1/2\ times less error than an all-
FAA tower and it costs less. Heaven forbid in Congress we should deal 
with saving the taxpayer money and have something that is safer and 
costs less, like this report identifies. I suggested we give the other 
side the opportunity, but they do not want to do that. I said I will 
give that opportunity. If people want to do that, fine.
  The conference participants really have decided what the issue was. 
There is one issue. Here is the record. So it has, in fact, boiled down 
to that. We have taken out the 69 towers from any potential of 
privatization. There is no mention of privatization in this bill. We 
gave them basically what they want, and they are still not happy. So, 
again, it boils down to a vote. We have to vote on this measure.
  Again, the question of the executive order, President Clinton, for 7 
years and 9 months practically, had the ability to look at any of these 
towers. He made some of them private with contract arrangements, and 
then he changed it. We know why he changed it, a huge amount of money, 
look at the record, you see what happens in campaigns and elections; 
and this President changed it back to where it was where President 
Clinton had it.
  And this is the safest system. We have 219 contract towers in the 
United States. Almost half of the towers in the United States are 
contract towers, and they are safe. And they also helped in taking down 
the planes safely on September 11. So do not bash the current system.
  That is what we are asking for, plus all the good things that we have

[[Page H10170]]

worked together on to make this a better piece of legislation for our 
country and our American aviation system.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised several issues. 
This bill opens the door even wider to privatization. The original 
House and Senate bills prohibited privatization. This bill does not. 
The President has determined that air traffic control is not an 
inherently governmental function. They want to contract it out. They 
want to make it into private for profit.
  And on the so-called operational areas, guess what. They are 
voluntarily reported. And of the 219 contract towers, only eight of 
them voluntarily reported an error. To say they had a very low error 
rate, the GAO determined, the IG determined that this was not a valid 
study, because we do not have mandatory reporting. We do not know 
whether there were errors or not. We cannot say they are 4\1/2\ times 
safer.
  And to say that we did this because of contributions is outrageous, 
and I should have had the gentleman's words taken down.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 5 minutes remaining and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                          ____________________