[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10176-H10179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 422, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United 
States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 422, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 29, 2003, at page H10008.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the rules 
and precedents of the House require that after the House has voted, 
that we meet in conference, that an actual meeting of a conference take 
place?
  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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, the answer is yes then; when we 
vote to go to conference, there has to be an actual meeting?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would make a point of order, since there 
was no actual meeting of the conference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his 
point of order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial issue of the privileges 
of Members in our representation of our districts, of our 
constituencies, and of the precedents of the House of Representatives 
on how we conduct business.
  The House earlier this week voted unanimously to return to conference 
because the bill had been in dispute because of a contentious section 
regarding the privatization or contracting out of 69 air traffic 
control towers. The only way it seemed possible to resolve that issue 
was to return to conference. The House voted unanimously to return to 
conference, but no conference meeting was ever held. Earlier in the 
debate one would have gotten the impression that such a meeting was 
held. It was not held.
  The Chair has ruled that an actual physical meeting of the conferees 
representing the various points of view on the bill in representing 
their constituents must be convened and they must have the opportunity 
to work through those issues.
  In this case, there was no meeting of any conference. No Democratic 
Member, and, to the best of my knowledge, no Republican Member, was 
invited to a conference, there was no public notice of a conference, 
and no conference took place. Yet the bill was modified and returned to 
the floor of the House here.
  So, Mr. Speaker, given the 200 years of precedent that an actual 
conference meeting must take place before you can have a conference 
report, I would respectfully make a point of order under clause 12 of 
rule XXII that there be at least one conference meeting. As I 
understand it, that same rule provides for a point of order in the 
House against the report and for an automatic request for a new 
conference if the House managers fail to meet in open session.
  So I would ask that the Chair so rule, that this bill is out of 
order, and that we be mandated to return to actually have a physical 
meeting of a conference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I do.
  Mr. Speaker, the House, as I recall, just passed on a vote of 220 to 
199 a rule by which this legislation would be considered before the 
House of Representatives. In that rule, there was clearly a provision 
that waived all points of order, which also would negate the previous 
standing rule of the House for specific meeting.

[[Page H10177]]

  I might say also, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the rule I did cite 
the sequence of events in which the conference did meet and in which 
full participation was permitted, and specifically cited a rule on the 
particular issue that has raised so much controversy here. We did 
acquiesce to the minority's request to pull that provision, and that 
was the reason it was handled in that fashion.
  So, again, based on the passage of the rule, the provisions of the 
rule and the adoption of the rule subsequently by the House of 
Representatives, I think that you will find the gentleman's point of 
order out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, surely the gentleman from Florida speaks about a 
supposititious meeting and a supposititious participation, because none 
such existed.
  Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman to explain what he meant 
by ``full participation.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman cannot yield.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I cannot yield. I thank the Speaker.
  That is the point; there was no such meeting. That, I find 
extraordinary. In the 40 years that I have served on the Committee on 
Public Works, now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
started on that committee as a clerk on the Subcommittee on Rivers and 
Harbors in January of 1963, I followed every one of our conferences. I 
have served on conferences for 24 years. Never have we failed to have 
meetings, except in a very few instances when a bill was conferenced 
without formal meeting of conferees, for which I reference the Aviation 
Noise Act of 1990, in which case the Senate, the other body, failed to 
call a meeting of conferees, but we did meet. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, was the ranking Republican on the 
subcommittee I chaired at that time, and I included him in every 
meeting.
  We did not have that courtesy extended to us. The rules of the House 
clearly were violated, to say the worst; avoided, to say the best. And 
I will compliment the Chair of the Committee on Rules. Last night when 
I raised this point, he, too, was shocked and offended and said that he 
would take this matter up with leadership and see that it does not 
happen again.
  But the gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that is 
sustained by the rules of the House, and I support the gentleman's call 
for a ruling by the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If no other Member wishes to be heard on the 
point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under House Resolution 422, previously adopted by the House, all 
points of order against consideration of the conference report are 
waived, and the point of order is overruled.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we finally come to the conference report on H.R. 2115, 
the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. It has been a 
struggle to get here, but I believe it is critical to the success of 
aviation that we complete our mission, particularly on this 100th 
anniversary of the first flight in the United States by the Wright 
Brothers.
  I want to take this time as we finish this conference report and this 
legislation to commend the Members of the minority. My ranking member, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), has been an outstanding leader 
on transportation issues in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and I have been honored to have him as a subcommittee 
ranking member. He has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to 
craft what I consider to be an excellent piece of legislation.
  During the rule debate, it was cited how many provisions were added 
by the Members of the minority, and I compliment the Members of the 
minority for their contributions to this well-crafted piece of 
legislation.
  Also, I want to take time to thank the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman 
is one of the most knowledgeable people on transportation issues. When 
I came to the Congress in 1993, he chaired the Subcommittee on 
Aviation. I have learned a great deal under his stewardship. He is also 
a font of historical institutional knowledge, both to the subcommittee 
and also to the committee, and has contributed greatly to the text of 
this measure.
  Now, this is a sizable measure and there are, again, some 70-plus 
Members on here, and there are some issues where folks did not get 
their entire provision included in this bill. It is difficult when you 
have such a diverse committee, and subcommittee of over 40 members, to 
please everyone and put every provision in possible. But, for the most 
part, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, crafted in a 
bipartisan spirit, in the tradition of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  This past week I attended the funeral ceremony of my former boss, 
William C. Cramer. He was the first Republican Member of Congress to 
represent Florida since the postreconstruction period, and I always 
looked up to him as ``Mr. Public Works.'' He added tremendously to the 
bipartisan working relationship that has continued, even when he was 
the only Republican from the State of Florida. I am pleased now, we 
have 18 out of 25 Republican Members from Florida. I appreciate his 
contributions. I also appreciate those of the minority in crafting 
this.
  Now, one would have to live on another planet to not know that there 
has been controversy over one primary issue, and that is the issue of 
privatization. We did include initially in this legislation a provision 
that did allow this President to look at some 69 specified VFR fully 
FAA-staffed towers and possibly consider them for future privatization 
or conversion to contract towers.
  After some 3 months. Since this past July 24, I believe, we filed the 
report and the conference met, and we did agree to take that provision 
out. We did not have a formal meeting of the conference committee. We 
knew after months of conflict that the issue was tearing us apart.
  But now we have taken that out, and we are in a situation where we 
have a piece of legislation, and this conference report, that is 
totally, completely silent on the issue of privatization. And now we 
are prepared hopefully to go beyond that, because this bill has many 
important provisions that we need.
  First of all, this measure aids in restoring jobs and opportunities 
in the American aviation industry.

                              {time}  1630

  We all know how hard hit this industry has been since the effects of 
the horrible day of September 11. No industry has lost more jobs. We 
talk about the loss of 2.7 million jobs in the economy; I would venture 
to say that at least 1 million are related either directly or 
indirectly to aviation. And it is slowly coming back, and this bill 
will aid it in coming back. So this will help us in creating jobs and 
opportunities for people in one of our most dynamic industries in this 
country.
  Finally, there are several other points that I would like to make 
about this legislation. It does release the money for aviation trust 
funds to pay for airport improvements. All across this country, 
airports are beginning to again rebuild the passenger traffic, to 
rebuild; we can almost feel some of the economy coming back. If we do 
not pass this, those improvements come to a halt, not only for 
improving the airports and the infrastructure, but also for security 
improvements that are so important. We have provided in this bill to 
again assist our airports with that important mission.
  So there are a whole host of areas where this is beneficial to the 
whole country. I urge the passage of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  I appreciate the very thoughtful comments of the gentleman from 
Florida about my service during the time I was the Chair of the 
subcommittee. We have had a very constructive, generally, relationship 
between the majority and the minority, both prior to the Republican 
majority and subsequent to it. Generally, on the Subcommittee on

[[Page H10178]]

Aviation, this has been perhaps the most constructive area of work on 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over the past 9 
years.
  But we have really run aground here on this issue. Had we actually 
had a conference and had a full, thorough discussion and debate the 
first time around, and had we been able to discuss the four principal 
issues. I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, there are many 
other matters of great importance: funding of the air traffic control 
system, F&E account, the operations account, the research and 
development account. All of those are important, and there are other 
important measures.
  But, there are four items on which we should have had a full 
discussion. And if we had and if we had been able to negotiate back and 
forth, some give and take, maybe we would win some of it and maybe the 
other side would win some of it. And this is not Democrat or Republican 
side. There are ideological differences on this matter; and if it came 
out this way after full and thorough discussion, we came out with the 
package now before us, it would have been a different arena. We did not 
have that discussion. We had it only for the few minutes during the 
first conference. After the conference report was recommitted, we had 
no meeting; we had no discussion. I appreciate the gentleman's comments 
that the minority asked to drop the language. I do not know who was 
consulted. We never had that conversation, either formally or 
informally. What we wanted was a discussion of options, of 
opportunities.
  The gentleman from Florida has several times referenced the report of 
the Inspector General of DOT. Now, the actual statements of the 
Inspector General I quote: ``In addition to limitations on evaluating 
the rating of contract towers performance,'' he said, ``and due to the 
low number of operational errors at both places,'' that is both 
contract and FAA, ``I would caution you against concluding that either 
group has a safer safety record than the other. It is just not fair to 
draw that conclusion.''
  The Inspector General's report goes on to show that, or the gentleman 
says that the IG's report says, the contract towers are two times safer 
than FAA towers. The IG specifically cautioned against this 
interpretation of the study.
  So I asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate the IG report, 
and that is what the General Accounting Office came back and said: ``We 
identified several potential limitations with FAA's data on operational 
errors based on our review of GAO and DOT reports and application of 
best methodological practices. Due to the way data are recorded, the 
severity of many errors cannot be determined or is misleading. Further, 
comparisons of operational errors among types of air traffic control 
facilities such as FAA staff versus contractor staff cannot be used 
alone to provide valid conclusions about safety, due to three factors 
we identified based on standards of methodological practices and our 
understanding of FAA's data. The determination,'' quoting further, ``of 
real differences in the rate of operational errors is difficult, and 
comparisons of operational error rates alone are not sufficient to draw 
conclusions.''
  The point is, there has never been a thorough, full discussion of 
this issue. We should have that. We should have had an extended hearing 
on the subject matter. We should have had a discussion of what policy 
this administration plans to bring to the privatization of air traffic 
control facilities. We have not had it.
  When the Clinton administration came up with this idea in 1993, I 
vigorously opposed it, with great support from our colleagues across 
the aisle; and we sent them in full flight retreat on this subject. We 
ought to do the same. We ought to join forces today to do the same, to 
put this issue in full flight retreat.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished 
chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on 
this legislation and the abuse he has taken over the last month and a 
half. He has stood up better than most people. I want to thank the 
staff, especially, for the work they have done over this period of 
time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). 
He is probably the most knowledgeable person in this House about 
aviation and has worked on it longer than anybody else, understands the 
problems and the needs. I would also like to say that I do appreciate 
the time that he has spent with me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on writing, I think, 
a very good piece of legislation.
  I will say this: I learned one thing. I will never let a cow out in 
the pasture without a halter again. This thing sort of got away from me 
a little bit, but it is still a good bill. It is a bill that should be 
done; it should be passed. The conference report is very, very, very 
vital. It does reauthorize the Federal aviation part for 4 years.
  I understand the part that has been the most controversial, which is 
the air traffic control privatization. I will say that when we did pass 
this in the House, we did not allow any of that to occur. I was in a 
position that I had to recognize a result instead of just a philosophy 
and a position that had to be achieved, and that was to try to 
compensate for interests outside of even the conference. And that was 
to try, and I thought we had done a good job of protecting, 95 percent 
of the control towers. That is what we do in the bill. But I had to 
agree to, and I will not apologize for it, to 69 and, yes, I will say, 
I took mine out; it was originally 71. But that is the process of the 
conference.
  But this bill does a lot of the other things besides that. That is 
what the most emphasis is upon. It does fund the small community air 
service program, the essential air service programs. It provides an 
increased airport improvement grant funding for the improvement of our 
airports. There are streamlining airport project reviews that are very 
important to get our airports built. Increases the number of slots at 
Reagan National Airport, with which some may not agree, but it was not 
the abundance of slots that there were on another bill. We kept the 
slots to a very minimum. It provides flight crew training and 
certification.
  Very frankly, as my colleagues know, this industry has taken a 
tremendous beating. We need this legislation to pass. We need it to 
become law. We need to get on with the idea of making sure our airports 
are safe under this legislation, and that we have the ability to move 
passengers safely and on time, and that we are not delayed by, I think, 
inactivity by another agency which sometimes does not do the job they 
should, and people are frustrated. I have talked to thousands of people 
today that are not afraid to fly; they are just afraid of the 
harassment of going to the airport. So I think we must address that.
  Overall, again, this, I believe, is a tremendous piece of 
legislation. It has some flaws, but when we work with two bodies and 
there are interests from the other side, we have to give some, we take 
some, and we end up with a result. I believe the result is a good piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of 
both the subcommittee and the full committee for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2115, this FAA 
reauthorization bill conference report.
  To begin with, I am deeply concerned that the Democratic members were 
not included in this conference committee. Members from both sides of 
the aisle and in both Chambers of Congress have worked too hard on this 
aviation reauthorization bill to have had it stalled over disputes that 
can be rectified through consensus.
  Secondly, the language that was struck from section 230 will actually 
make it easier for the privatization of air traffic control positions. 
Ultimately, when we address the future of our national air traffic 
controllers, I firmly believe that we need to view it through the scope 
of safety and security. No amount of cost-saving can

[[Page H10179]]

come close to substituting for the safety and security of our national 
aviation system and infrastructure.
  This is not an administrative shell game, Mr. Speaker, nor should we 
treat it as such. At risk is the American flying public.
  In 2002, 612 million people boarded U.S. carriers, serving both 
domestic and international flights. No event illustrates the importance 
and the grave necessity of ensuring that we have a skilled air traffic 
control network than the events of 9-11. On that horrific day, as 
Americans waited for the next tragic event to unfold, our Nation's air 
traffic controllers calmly landed almost 5,000 planes in 2 hours 
without any operational incidents or errors. This incredible feat was 
due to the skill and ultimate professionalism of our Nation's air 
traffic controllers.
  As a senior member representing California on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, I have local concerns as well. Specifically, Southern 
California is no ordinary region. We are the most populous region in 
the country. The congestion on the highways of Southern California is 
legendary.
  Mr. Speaker, let us oppose this bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate the diligence and leadership that he has 
provided and the countless hours that he has invested in providing us 
with a good bill today. I want to echo the gentleman from Alaska's 
(Chairman Young) thanks and appreciation to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) whose time of service, whose interest, whose 
involvement in this and in all transportation projects is very 
admirable, particularly on aviation. His knowledge and wisdom and 
experience that he brings to the table is outstanding, and I appreciate 
the friendship that we share.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the FAA reauthorization bill 
because we need to move forward with improvements to our Nation's 
aviation system. This bill is about improving our Nation's aviation 
infrastructure and system at a time when we are looking for ways to 
stimulate our economy. Slowing the modernization of our aviation system 
is exactly the wrong thing to do.
  The conference report includes more than $14 billion for airport 
improvements, money from the aviation trust fund to pay for 
improvements such as new runways, taxiways, terminal buildings and 
noise abatement, and a streamlined environmental review process. The 
bill includes over $100 million in critical funding to support air 
services at small and medium airports.
  The legislation provides an important economic stimulus. Civil 
aviation generates more than $900 billion in gross domestic product 
every year. In fiscal year 2004 alone, funding in the FAA 
reauthorization bill for airport construction projects will create 
approximately 162,000 direct and indirect jobs. Over the life of the 
bill, the $14 billion for airport improvements will create 
approximately 665,000 jobs. It frees up takeoff and landing slots at 
Reagan National Airport. It increases competition for consumers. For 
cargo pilots, it allows them to be armed, just like passenger airline 
pilots.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill keeps our promise to the flying public and 
continues the guarantee that all of the taxes and revenues paid into 
the aviation trust fund will be used and fully spent for airport 
improvements, air traffic control modernization; and all of these 
issues will be fully funded.

                          ____________________