[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.
____________________