Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 109 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 109 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5257-H5266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2011, PART IV

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 357, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the
airport improvement program, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 357, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2553

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Airport and Airway Extension
Act of 2011, Part IV''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.

(a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``July 22, 2011'' and inserting ``September 16, 2011''.
(b) Ticket Taxes.--
(1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``July
22, 2011'' and inserting ``September 16, 2011''.
(2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``July 22, 2011'' and inserting
``September 16, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on July 23, 2011.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 23, 2011'' and inserting ``September
17, 2011''; and
(2) by inserting ``or the Airport and Airway Extension Act
of 2011, Part IV'' before the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e)
of such Code is amended by striking ``July 23, 2011'' and
inserting ``September 17, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on July 23, 2011.

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 48103 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the
following:
``(8) $3,380,178,082 for the period beginning on October 1,
2010, and ending on September 16, 2011.''.
(2) Obligation of amounts.--Subject to limitations
specified in advance in appropriation Acts, sums made
available pursuant to the amendment made by paragraph (1) may
be obligated at any time through September 30, 2011, and
shall remain available until expended.
(b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) of such
title is amended by striking ``July 22, 2011,'' and inserting
``September 16, 2011,''.

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES.

(a) Section 40117(l)(7) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``July 23, 2011.'' and inserting
``September 17, 2011.''.
(b) Section 44302(f)(1) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 22, 2011,'' and inserting
``September 16, 2011,''; and
(2) by striking ``October 31, 2011,'' and inserting
``December 31, 2011,''.
(c) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``October 31, 2011,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011,''.
(d) Section 47107(s)(3) of such title is amended by
striking ``July 23, 2011.'' and inserting ``September 17,
2011.''.
(e) Section 47115(j) of such title is amended by striking
``July 23, 2011,'' and inserting ``September 17, 2011,''.
(f) Section 47141(f) of such title is amended by striking
``July 22, 2011.'' and inserting ``September 16, 2011.''.
(g) Section 49108 of such title is amended by striking
``July 22, 2011,'' and inserting ``September 16, 2011,''.
(h) Section 161 of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 47109 note) is amended by
striking ``July 23, 2011,'' and inserting ``September 17,
2011,''.
(i) Section 186(d) of such Act (117 Stat. 2518) is amended
by striking ``July 23, 2011,'' and inserting ``September 17,
2011,''.
(j) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
on July 23, 2011.

SEC. 6. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE REFORM.

(a) In General.--Section 41731(a)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by redesignating clauses (i)
through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated) by inserting
``(A)'' before ``(i)(I)'';
(4) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking ``determined'' and inserting ``was
determined'';
(B) by striking ``Secretary'' and inserting ``Secretary of
Transportation''; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) is located not less than 90 miles from the nearest
medium or large hub airport; and
``(C) had an average subsidy per passenger of less than
$1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by
the Secretary.''.
(b) Limitation on Authority To Decide a Place Not an
Eligible Place.--Section 41731(b) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' and
inserting ``Secretary''; and
(2) by striking ``on the basis of a passenger subsidy at
that place or on another basis'' and inserting ``on any
basis''.
(c) Exceptions and Waivers.--Section 41731 of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Exceptions for Locations in Alaska.--Subsections
(a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C) shall not apply with respect to a
location in the State of Alaska.
``(d) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive subsection
(a)(1)(B) with respect to a location if the Secretary
determines that the geographic characteristics of the
location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest
medium or large hub airport.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

{time} 1340

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for the third consecutive Congress, we are working to
pass a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. This year both the House
and Senate passed their own reauthorizations; but, unfortunately,
negotiations with the Senate have slowed, and it is necessary for us to
pass another extension to enable the FAA to continue to operate.
This bill is a short-term extension of FAA funding and programs
through September 16 at current levels. This extension also includes
important reforms to the Essential Air Service program. These reforms
could result in as much as $20 million in savings for the American
taxpayer.
The first reform provision was adopted unanimously by the Senate and
is included in its reauthorization bill. That provides that only
airports that are 90 miles or more away from a large- or medium-hub
airport would be eligible to participate in the Essential Air Service--
90 miles away. People can obviously and in most instances would prefer
to drive 90 miles rather than take a connecting flight. It seems like a
sensible thing. We hadn't thought about it when we passed our original

[[Page H5258]]

legislation; the Senate did. We are including their reform. So we are,
in effect, acceding to the Senate. In the case of one airport under the
current program which is within 90 miles, we are paying a per passenger
subsidy of $851, and the nearest hub is 82 miles away. That is a $10
per mile subsidy.
So the second provision dealing with Essential Air Service caps the
subsidies for each passenger, in addition to the fares they pay, at
$1,000. During this economically difficult time, it is not possible to
justify using taxpayer dollars to pay a subsidy of $1,000 per passenger
at an EAS airport, and subsidies can frequently exceed that amount. If
there are difficulties with that, there is other language that would
allow the executive branch to waive this provision.
The EAS provisions included in the extension are limited and sensible
reforms that target the most indefensible of the subsidies. If we can't
do this, what can we do, especially after 23 or 24 extensions that have
been holding the whole program and the efficiency and improvements in
the air infrastructure of our country hostage.
The House-passed bill actually phases out the Essential Air Services
program for all but Alaska and Hawaii. We are not insisting on that at
all. We are modifying that and going along with largely what the Senate
itself has been suggesting in this regard. So these provisions are a
compromise, and EAS will continue to be discussed as we work to
finalize the bill.
As Congress tries to find a way forward to address deficit and long-
term debt issues, if we can't put an end to these extravagant
subsidies, then we will never be able to rein in spending where really
hard decisions are necessary.
Although I continue to hold out hope that we will reach a compromise
with the Senate in the near future, it is necessary to pass this
extension to provide the FAA with continued funding authority and
provide needed EAS reform. Ultimately, we need to get back to the
negotiating table to work out a long-term FAA bill. Short-term
extensions are not the way to run such an important agency.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 18, 2011.
Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 2553, the
``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV'' which
is expected to be scheduled for floor consideration this
week.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3
of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by
extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)
expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes
to September 16, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 2553 for
Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the
bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does
not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 2553, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2011.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2553, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part
IV.'' The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
recognizes the Committee on Ways and Means has a
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 2553, and I appreciate your
effort to facilitate consideration of this bill.
I concur with you that forgoing action on H.R. 2553 does
not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or
similar legislation in the future, and I would support your
effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this
legislation.
I will include our letters on H.R. 2553 in the
Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of the
bill. Again, I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation and I look forward to working with the Committee
on Ways and Means as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway
Extension Act of 2011. This is the 21st extension of the FAA authority
to fund airport improvement projects at current levels, through
September 16, 2011. Regrettably, unlike all of the prior 20 extensions
of the FAA authority, this bill includes a policy rider eliminating
Essential Air Service eligibility for 13 airports in small and rural
communities.
The issue today is not whether we support the Essential Air Service
program or not. We should not be legislating on this extension. We
should have a clean extension so we can move it over to the Senate and
make certain that the FAA is funded through September 16.
There have been no hearings on proposals to reduce EAS this Congress
and no hearings on this bill either. Members with affected communities
should be allowed to make their case to the House and offer amendments
to the bill that would preserve service to their communities.
Instead, this extension is inviting opposition and creating major
problems because the Senate has indicated they will not accept this
extension. Policy riders should be left out of the extension and taken
up by the House and Senate conferees, if, in fact, we ever have
conferees appointed here in the House.
Earlier this year, the House and Senate both approved comprehensive
FAA reauthorization bills. In February, the Senate passed the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 87-8. Passage of the Senate bill was
widely applauded by both labor and industry stakeholders, and it was
estimated the bill would create at least 10,000 jobs.
In contrast, in April of this year, the House passed an extremely
controversial H.R. 658 by a vote of 223-196, the narrowest vote margin
for House passage of an FAA reauthorization bill in nearly three
decades. The bill has been harshly criticized by labor and industry
stakeholders because it would undermine aviation safety, slash FAA
funding, and destroy good-paying airport construction jobs.
Since Chairman Mica introduced the FAA reauthorization bill, we have
been warned and we have warned, actually, that it contains a number of
controversial poison pill provisions that seriously jeopardize the
enactment of a long-term reauthorization act this year.
The failure to enact a long-term FAA reauthorization act is costing
taxpayers millions of dollars and the Nation tens of thousands of good-
paying jobs. Short-term stopgap funding authorizations have stymied
airport construction, job creation, and the FAA's overall ability to
efficiently administer its programs. Further, multiple FAA extension
acts have created uncertainty among local airport officials regarding
the total amount of Federal funding available this year for airport
construction. As a result, State and local airport officials are
advancing fewer projects, less new construction is moving forward, and
fewer jobs are being created.
Last week the Airports Council International of North America sent a
letter stating that if Congress did not extend the airport grant
program through September 30, ``safety and security projects will go
unfunded and the much needed jobs associated with these projects will
not materialize.'' So I am puzzled why the majority would disregard
this warning. It is time that we move forward and that we get a clean
extension so we in fact can move to conference and get a bill that is
agreed upon that we can bring to the floor that can be signed by the
President.
For the majority of the House who claims to care about creating jobs,
reducing bureaucracy, and listening to the business community, this
extension bill goes out of its way to create unnecessary red tape and
problems.
The FAA needs the certainty, stability, and direction that a long-
term

[[Page H5259]]

reauthorization act provides. Further, the American people and the
American public deserve a long-term FAA reauthorization act that will
create jobs, improve safety, and modernize our infrastructure. We need
to stop playing partisan games, quit posturing, and pass a clean
extension through September 16, appoint conferees, and in fact reach
agreement on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee, Mr. Petri, for his leadership. Also Mr. Costello, who
formerly chaired the committee and now is the ranking member. I want to
thank him for his dedication to our Nation's aviation system, safety.
And also Mr. Rahall. You couldn't ask for better partners. Mr. Rahall
is the Democrat leader of the committee, and we have a great working
relationship. We have had a great working relationship to try to move
forward legislation like a long-term reauthorization of FAA and other
major transportation legislation that has been mired in delay. Quite
frankly, my colleagues, I find myself very frustrated being here.
Now, this is the 21st extension. I complimented and don't let me not
compliment the staff on both sides. We have great professionals that
deal with this.

{time} 1350

The Congress is fortunate and the Nation is blessed to have the kind
of leadership we have with staff working on these important issues to
move what accounts for about 8 to 9 percent of our GDP. That's the
aviation industry forward, setting the policy, the programs, the
funding formula, all those things these folks are responsible for. And
they're good stewards of that responsibility. So I thank them in
advance. I also want to thank Senator Rockefeller, Mr. Speaker, and
others who have worked with us trying to bring this to a conclusion.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking Republican on the Senate side, worked
in good faith to try to get this, again, inexcusable delay in passing
the long-term reauthorization.
That being said, again, I find myself so frustrated. This is the 21st
delay. We have a former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello. Mr.
Petri now chairs it. He's been active on this. I was chairman for 6
years of the subcommittee. We were all wanting to do the same thing--
and that's move forward with reauthorization.
The irony of this is I chaired the Subcommittee on Aviation in 2003,
when we were wrote the last reauthorization. And we did that in some 6
months. And there were controversial provisions. That 4-year bill
expired in 2007. We have not passed a reauthorization, even when the
other side had humongous numbers in this Chamber and control of the
other body. At one point, I think 60 votes to get something done.
Nothing was done. Seventeen extensions under their watch. And, quite
frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is the fourth extension. But I'm
trying to do in 6 or 7 months what couldn't be done in almost 5 years.
And we're going to get it done. We're going to get it done one way or
the other.
Now, we have also done three what they call clean extensions to move
this process forward. And we did need some time. You have to be
reasonable because this is a new Congress. The other body, the Senate,
passed their bill in February. We passed the first day in April our
legislation. And here we find ourselves on the fourth, again,
extension, which is regrettable.
All this, I say, my colleagues, could be resolved I think in a matter
of an hour. There's been great work and discussions, informal
discussions, in what we call preconference, where some of the
principles get together and discuss the terms. All these issues are not
new. Mr. Costello and I, Mr. Oberstar and I, we had discussed this. In
fact, I think the other body took up the pending legislation from last
time. My goodness, it was pending for 48 months. So there's no new
issues here. Again, we find ourselves stalled in the process.
That being said, I call on the Members to pass this extension. This
is a clean extension, except for one change; and it has two parts. The
first part deals with Essential Air Service. That's the program that
underwrites, again, routes for air service from local communities. This
is a program that started at about $50 million a decade ago and now is
approaching $200 million. We had a vote here in the House, and we
decided to sunset that program, I guess with the exception of two of
our exceptional States, Hawaii and Alaska, who have some unique
geographic limitations on service. But the other body passed a
provision, the Senate, passed a provision that would eliminate service
based on distance, I think it's 90 miles, and it affected some 10
communities. Mr. Speaker, I'll insert in the Record the 10 communities
affected.
So this is language that the other body passed and we are including.
Now, I have made one exception, and it affects three airports, three
States: Nevada, Montana, and New Mexico. A provision I put in is that
no State or no airport operation that has service where the subsidy
exceeds a thousand dollars a ticket can receive that subsidy. I don't
think that's unreasonable, when we've got from now until the beginning
of August to get our Nation's finances together. I want to see folks
come down here to vote to continue to see subsidies for more than a
thousand. One of these subsidies, and I won't state the State but you
can figure it out, is $3,719 per passenger. That's obscene when our
country is on the verge of debt crises and disaster.
If I have to take the entire reauthorization and we continue--now
this extends through the 16th of September. I'm putting everybody on
notice that each time we will pass reauthorization, if we have to do it
extension by extension. So we're starting with this small part of what
the other body has passed, and I'm adding what I think is a reasonable
provision. A thousand-dollar subsidy in itself is almost obscene, if
you ask the average Member of Congress. In fact, when I went to the
Rules Committee, one of the members on the other side of the aisle was
stunned that we were paying those kinds of fees.
Now, don't come here and tell me that we don't legislate on
extensions. In fact, the other body put an entire bill, a regional
safety legislation, on one of the past 17 extensions. So we've done
this before. We need to work together on this. I would implore Members
on both sides of the aisle to support this because this is in the
people's interest. This has to move forward. I don't know of any other
mechanism. I certainly am not going to allow this fiasco to continue
and certainly I don't want the FAA to close down at midnight on Friday
night. And that won't happen. Essential services will continue. Air
traffic controllers will be at their job. There may be some people
furloughed. But it is not my fault. It will be the responsibility of
the other body, who does not take this up and pass it. They will be
furloughing people and putting people out of jobs.
If you want to see people work, then let's pass the FAA bill. It has
the Next Generation air traffic control provisions. It has safety
provisions in there that are long overdue.
So, again, I'm a bit frustrated. I want the best for the Nation. I
want the best for our air traffic control system, our aviation system,
and thousands of people who depend--not just working in the Federal
Government, but in this important industry--to move forward. Again, I'm
so disappointed. But we're going to find one way. I may not be the most
powerful Member, I may not be the most intelligent Member, I may not be
the highest ranking Member. But I'll tell you what: I am a persistent
Member. And we will pass reauthorization one way or another. We're
going to get it done. So I appreciate everyone's indulgence in working
with me on this project.

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AND DISTANCES TO NEAREST HUB--BASED ON FY
2009 HUB DATA
[Excludes communities located in Alaska]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAS Community Nearest large/medium hub Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens, GA........................... Atlanta Hartsfield- 72
Jackson Int'l, GA (L).
Morgantown, WV....................... Pittsburgh Int'l, PA (M) 75
Jamestown, NY........................ Buffalo Niagara Int'l 76
(M).
Bradford, PA......................... Buffalo Niagara Int'l 77
(M).
Hagerstown, MD/Martinsburg, WV....... Washington Dulles Int'l, 78
VA (L).
Jonesboro, AR........................ Memphis Int'l, TN (M)... 82
Johnstown, PA........................ Pittsburgh Int'l, PA (M) 84
Oil City/Franklin, PA................ Pittsburgh Int'l, PA (M) 85
Lancaster, PA........................ Philadelphia Int'l, PA 86
(L).
Jackson, TN.......................... Memphis Int'l, TN (M)... 86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H5260]]

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I commend our ranking member, Mr. Costello, Chairman
Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, my senior Senator, Jay Rockefeller,
in the other body and his ranking member, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for the
tremendous efforts they have put in this legislation and so much other
legislation important for our infrastructure in this country. I
recognize that those on the majority, their heart is in the right
place. Perhaps those whose pay grade is above them have different
opinions and different agendas on this legislation. And perhaps that's
the reason why we need to appoint conferees, as the other body has
done, and move forward and let the normal process work its will in this
legislation.
But instead, we're here to consider the 21st short-term extension of
FAA programs and authority and the fourth short-term extension this
Congress, as our chairman has just stated. Twenty-one extensions. It's
now old enough to drink. Instead of celebrating, however, this should
give all cause for concern. This past Saturday marked the 100th day
since the Senate appointed conferees on long-term reauthorization. The
sun has risen and set over the Capitol more than 200 times since then.
House and Senate negotiators have boiled down the remaining issues to
just a few.

{time} 1400

But the House Republican leadership still has not appointed conferees
to move this process forward, despite the fact that, as Chairman Mica
has acknowledged to the press late last week and even in his comments
here today, the remaining differences are so few they could be resolved
by conferees in 20 minutes. So I ask: What is the Republican leadership
waiting for?
We find ourselves now faced with the need for a 21st extension.
Unlike the three other extensions this Chamber has passed this year,
this extension contains a policy rider that would cut 13 small and
rural communities from the Essential Air Service program.
There have been no hearings on proposals, as Ranking Member Costello
has stated, to reduce EAS and no hearings on this proposal in
particular. That said, I would note for the record that the provision
of this extension dealing with EAS is an improvement over the proposal
in the House-passed reauthorization bill that would have cut the EAS
program altogether for the lower 48 States.
There's no question that a sunset of the program would not pass the
Senate and be enacted, and at least my Republican colleagues have
stepped back from the brink on that particular proposal. However, I am
disappointed that instead of appointing conferees to address the future
of the EAS program and other outstanding issues in this long-term
reauthorization, my Republican colleagues have instead chosen to force
a major policy provision into an otherwise clean FAA extension bill at
the last minute.
Holding hostage the negotiations is not the way to move the
reauthorization process forward. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to
set us back in our efforts to work with the other body and reach
agreement on a long-term reauthorization.
I object to the tactics used by my Republican friends and colleagues,
and I implore them to act in good faith, appoint conferees, and work
toward enactment of a long-term reauthorization bill that will put
Americans to work and improve the safety of our skies.
Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Thank you so much for yielding again.
The question has been brought up to try to shift the responsibility
for, again, the possibility of the other body's not acting here to the
question of the Republicans not appointing conferees.
I might point out just for the record that in the 110th Congress--
this is for an entire 2 years--the Senate never passed an FAA
reauthorization bill, so we never even got to preconference. We never
got to the issue. So they never appointed conferees. There was a bill
passed. And, again, huge majorities on both sides.
In the 111th Congress, the House and Senate passed FAA
reauthorizations and preconferenced for 5 months without naming
conferees. They never named any conferees.
This process of preconferencing is part of the bipartisan nature of
our committee and our work and bicameral discussions. As I said,
they've been excellent. The staff has been working well. These aren't
new issues. The other side controlled the process for some 4 years. The
bills have been out there for some time.
I have the commitment from the leadership, when we are ready to go
and having resolved most of the issues, and, again, there are only a
couple and everyone knows what they are, I think that they can fall in
place. But we need the leadership of the other body, in fact, the
leader of the other body, to step forward and act in a responsible
manner in dealing with me or the leadership of the House or someone in
responding to a major impediment that we have to move this process
forward. Then our leadership has said they will appoint conferees. We
can sit down, resolve those issues in a public forum, and pass this. We
could do that tomorrow.
So, again, it's not the question of appointing conferees. And if I
have to take more strident measures to get this job done, we're going
to get the job done one way or the other, as I said.
Now, I had a Republican ask me to modify the language that the Senate
passed before the Rules Committee. There's a tape. You can all see it;
it's part of the Record. And I said, No, I don't want to do that. I
want to take what the Senate passed. The only difference here in the
Essential Air Service is that I provided language that says that if you
get more than a $1,000 subsidy that affects three airports, that will
not be allowed. That's the only thing standing between us and shutting
down part of our Federal Aviation Administration.
Mr. COSTELLO. I yield myself 10 seconds just to make a point to the
chairman.
The 5-month period that he referred to, one, the Republicans in the
Senate, as he knows, blocked our ability to appoint conferees. In
particular, the Senators from Tennessee put a hold on it until the
Colgan families made their point to let the hold move forward.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of
the Aviation Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This used to be a legislative body. I'm not quite sure what it is
now.
The way, traditionally, the House and the Senate resolve differences
is the House and the Senate each pass a bill--most people learn this in
their high school civics class. Then each side appoints conferees and
they get together and hash through the differences. I've actually
served on some of those conference committees. I've actually voted
across the aisle on some provisions of bills in those conference
committees.
But not now. What they're saying here is, after they have worked out
all the differences with the Senate and only in the way that their bill
passed the House--that is, my way or the highway, or, my way or your
plane's grounded, however you want to look at it--then they will
appoint conferees to a meaningless conference on something that's
already agreed to and then we'll come back and pass their bill.
It doesn't work that way. It won't work that way. And this is just
not a simple problem, because if the FAA has to close down all of its
capital improvement programs--Friday night, very expensive, 4,000
people laid off--thousands of projects across the country that would
put construction workers to work and suppliers to work won't happen. So
this isn't a no-cost playing games kind of thing that they're doing
here.
And what's it all about? The bottom line is it's about whether or not
labor should have the right to organize. That is what hung up the bill
in the Senate before because they wanted to have a level playing field.
We wanted to have a level playing field between providers of railroad
and airline services and allow people to actually organize, to be

[[Page H5261]]

represented. And, of course, Federal Express hated that, and their two
Senators held up the last conference in the last Congress, plain and
simple.
Now they're on the same wavelength here. The Republicans here want to
overrule the National Labor Relations Board and impose a rule for
organizing that says you have to have a majority of people voting and a
majority of the majority voting; i.e., if you apply the same rule that
they want to the United States House of Representatives, not one Member
of this House would have won their election. Not even some people who
are in totally partisan districts, Democrat or Republican. No one would
have won because no one got a majority of the majority of the votes.
That's the rule they want to apply to labor.
So if you want to organize a union, there's 100 people. First off,
you've got to get 51 positive votes. Anybody who doesn't vote counts as
a negative vote. So if we apply those same things, we would never have
Federal elections in this country. You would never be able to elect
anybody to anything. And they say, oh, that'll be fair for labor.
That's what's hanging up this bill: their anti-labor fervor, their
hatred of working people and their right to organize. It's absolutely
obscene that they are going to do that and cost us more jobs by not
having a capital improvement program.
Mr. PETRI. I would just point out to my colleagues that the provision
that was changed by the National Labor Relations Board to which my
colleague referred has been the law of this land for a generation. So
it's not anti-labor fervor at all; it's more regular order.
Madam Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Wisconsin has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Illinois has 19\1/4\ minutes remaining.

{time} 1410

Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the
full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Thank you, my colleagues.
You just heard the comments. Again, I couldn't have a better friend
or compatriot on many issues and on many improvements that we've made
to transportation on the committee together: Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman
from Oregon. He said this used to be a legislative body. Yes, it was a
legislative body before the other side took over 4 years ago and closed
down quite a bit of the process.
Now, has this been an open process on the FAA reauthorization? I
submit to you that it has been from the committee.
Go back and check the committee records. We held more votes on this
FAA reauthorization in committee than we held probably for the last 6
years--I know certainly for the last 4 years--on that one piece of
legislation. On the floor, we had an open process. I think there were
some 30 amendments, and 23, I believe, were made in order. So, unless
they were duplicative or the Rules Committee took them out, it was an
open process as opposed to a closed process with closed rules that,
again, we had on major pieces of legislation for some time. So this has
been an open process.
The House is going to act. The House is going to pass this. If we
have to pass additional extensions, as I said, with the rest of the
reauthorization piece by piece, then we are going to pass a
reauthorization to set the policy, the programs, the projects, and the
priorities for our aviation industry and for FAA. The only projects
that will be stopped are projects for which, if the other body doesn't
act on this extension, they will be responsible for.
The only difference in the extension--and we gave them three clean
extensions, and this is a clean extension with their provision that
passed with their language unanimously in the other body--is that I
added three States--actually, three airports--that subsidized in excess
of $1,000 per ticket, per passenger.
Again, when the Nation is going down the tubes almost literally
because of debt, we can't make one little, tiny change and move this
process forward? keep people working? put safety provisions that are in
this reauthorization that we don't have now and move forward with it?
There is something wrong.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the leadership on
the committee and then simply appeal to my chairman, Mr. Mica, to come
and reason together, because this has been a committee that has had a
history of reasoning together. Without my standing here and going
through it, you are very aware of what the most objectionable part of
this extension is.
If we are serious about passing an extension, let's pass the
extension and deal with the other issues at another time. Yes, it has
been since 2007, and it has been because of the battling back and
forth. You're either pro-labor or anti-labor, but we are ruining the
lives of workers. We are subjecting safety to the whims, and we are
messing up projects and wasting money by allowing this bickering to
continue.
I would simply appeal to our chairman to please come to the table,
and let's pass a clean extension bill.
Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I just thought, as long as we were spending some time
talking about the modest cleaning up of the series of, kind of,
earmarks that have accumulated over the years in the Essential Air
Service program, which was referred to by the chairman of the committee
as a program that started out as a true essential air service to help
provide access to the outside world to very isolated communities, it
has gradually been kind of earmarked, going from $50 million to some
$200 million in cost. They're not isolated, but they are subsidized.
God knows why.
Let me just mention a few of the areas that would be affected by
these modest changes: that it has to be more than 90 miles from another
airport and, secondly, that we try to cap the subsidy, unless it's
varied somewhat by the Secretary, at $1,000 per seat, per flight.
One that would be affected that is currently being subsidized is
Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's 82 miles from Memphis. You can't drive 82
miles, and you want the Federal Government to provide service?
Athens, Georgia, is 72 miles from Atlanta, and it's getting
subsidized.
We're worrying about billions of dollars of subsidies. If we can't
even do this, where do we start? They say a big journey starts with a
single step, and we're not willing to take even in this small area the
most modest of steps.
Harristown, Maryland, which is north of here, is 78 miles from the
Dulles Airport. It's getting a subsidy of over $800 per flight, and
it's right near Baltimore as well.
There is Glendive, Montana, which is 60 miles from another essential
airport in Montana. It's just 60 miles. You could drive over to
Sidney--but no, they're asking for a $1,357 subsidy, per passenger,
flying from Glendive under this program.
Alamogordo, New Mexico, is 89 miles from a hub airport in El Paso,
but instead of driving 89 miles, there continues to be a $1,500
subsidy. You can rent a car. This is a profligate, hard-to-defend use
of the taxpayers' money, yet people are talking about closing the
government down or the FAA down unless they can spend $1,500 to
subsidize a flight when you can drive 89 miles to another airport.
This is what we're talking about, and this is why my constituents and
many others are wondering when we're going to get serious out here
about taking the modest steps to get our financial affairs and our
stewardship of the Federal taxpayers' money under better control.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the debt limit isn't the only deadline that is upon
us. Here we are, facing Friday--D-day for the Nation's aviation system.
This is the third Congress where our committee has passed this bill.
Most of the sections of the bill do not have major disagreement. But,
now, we are going for a bare 2-month extension.
On the policy rider, all I've got to say is, why make it more
difficult when

[[Page H5262]]

you know that when it goes to the other body, it's either going to be
stripped out or we're going to be facing another terrible deadline.
I appreciate that negotiations have been going on all along with
staff. I do believe, though, that the failure of the majority to
appoint conferees is a problem with this bill because, once members are
appointed, it seems to me that sends another signal and gets another
set of people in it to move the bill. So the conferees do matter and
should have been appointed.
These are difficult issues, and they shouldn't be left to linger:
Next Generation Air Transportation.

{time} 1420

If we don't modernize our air transportation, we're going to be left
behind even developing countries. Runway safety. We've had collisions
on runways at airports right here where there are major airports.
Aircraft noise, and we always have this issue, of whether or not the
perimeter rule is going to be extended or violated again. Well, you
know, I oppose increases of the perimeter rule, but I oppose even more
not sitting down to figure it out with conferees at the table.
We've got the air ambulance operation issues, the oversight of
foreign carriers and, of course, the notorious national mediation board
issue, where what constitutes a majority could only be an issue in this
Congress. Is it the majority of votes cast, or is the majority of those
in the class or in the whole group? If it's a majority of votes cast,
then, of course, it's what all of us in the Congress use every 2 years
to get elected.
There are matters in this bill that the Congress has to do anyway
that would be especially useful to do now as we recover from the Great
Recession.
We should pass this bill providing jobs, which is something we have
to do anyway, now, when it would count, would matter very much to the
entire country. Let's reauthorize the entire bill and quit short-term
extensions.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 15\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the
full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee went
through the list of the airports that are within 90 miles that would be
affected by the provisions of this extension.
Now, all of those 10 airports were included in an amendment and a
provision that's in the Senate bill and passed unanimously. The only
difference, and he spoke briefly to one of them, again is the provision
that I put in putting a restriction on paying more than a thousand
dollars per ticket, per passenger subsidy. Those subsidies start in
Montana at one airport with $1,357.
Another airport, one airport in New Mexico, has a subsidization per
ticket per passenger of $1,563.
Now the granddaddy, the big enchilada in this whole thing is one
airport in Nevada. Every ticket is subsidized $3,719.
Now you're telling me that they are going to close down parts of the
FAA to preserve this subsidy when this Nation is on the verge of a
financial debt crisis unheard of in the history of our Nation.
So, again, I've tried to deal on a bipartisan, bicameral basis
working with folks to get this done. Twenty-one extensions over 4
years. I'm not adding an entire bill. I'm adding that one provision.
The other side added in one of their extensions an entire bill.
The other language Mr. Petri spoke to was 10 airports that are within
the distance of 90 miles that the Senate passed unanimously. So it's
not like I am taking some language.
A Republican tried to change that in the Rules Committee, and I
recommended against it. And we did not change it because, again, I want
to have language that the Senate passed.
So that's what we boil down to on the eve of a crisis with FAA, on
the eve of a crisis with our Nation's finances, we're going to come and
vote here. And I want people to go back and say, ``I voted for a $3,700
subsidy for air service for one passenger for one ticket.'' I want to
see that list of names.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I rise today in continued opposition to the Airport and
Airway Extension Act of 2011, H.R. 2553. I will continue to oppose the
FAA reauthorization until the FAA rethinks their ill-advised redesign
for the airspace around New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia.
I have opposed this airspace redesign from day one, along with some
of my Republican colleagues in New Jersey as well, and have thwarted
its implementation every step of the way.
Time and time again, the FAA has pursued the airspace redesign while
ignoring the concerns of my constituents in Rockland County, New York.
The FAA created their proposal with zero input from the very people
whose lives would be most harmed by the proposal. In fact, even when we
brought this up to the FAA, they had to be dragged kicking and
screaming into holding a public forum in Rockland County. This plan,
which will only save minutes on flight time, will disrupt the lives of
thousands of residents in my district in Rockland County in New York
and in northern New Jersey who live under the new flight plans.
As my constituents have noted to me, the noise and air pollution in
the area will increase. It is unknown how this increase in air
pollution will affect the disproportionate rate of childhood asthma in
my district. The modernization of our aviation system is necessary to
bring it into the 21st century, to keep pace with the increased number
of flights, and to also maintain our technological advancements by
implementing new equipment to keep our system the safest in the world.
However, there are several alternatives to this plan, and I encourage
my colleagues to join me in opposition to this reauthorization. Not
only are we going to have planes going into Newark Airport fly directly
over my constituents, but now there are other paths of planes coming in
from JFK airport as well.
This is government at its worst running roughshod over the people
that it's supposed to serve, not taking any kind of input. In fact,
they come up with a redesign plan. And then when it's challenged, the
person who decides the challenge was the very author of the redesign
plan to begin with. Sounds like a kangaroo court to me.
So I am going to continue to oppose these things. I think at a time
when we're all talking about government spending less and being more
sensitive, this is a good place to start. And I will continue to oppose
the FAA reauthorization until the FAA halts and revises their deeply
flawed airspace redesign plan for New York, New Jersey, and
Philadelphia.
Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, we heard from Chairman Mica, who we have worked with
very closely. He has done, I think, his very best up to this point to
try and get an FAA reauthorization bill both out of the House and to
the point where we can get it to a conference committee.
So he said he is very frustrated with the process. We are very
frustrated with the process. And today the extension that the majority
is offering even frustrates us more because we know that this is an
extension, not a clean extension, but it has a rider on it involving
Essential Air Services.
The debate today and the discussion about this extension is not about
Essential Air Service. Some members may support Essential Air Service,
others may not support it. There's been a lot said on the floor today
about subsidizing a $3,000 subsidy per ticket. Just for the record, we
are not debating that. That is to be taken up by conferees if we ever
get to conference. Members can, in fact, have their opportunity to make
changes in the EAS program at that time. It should not be a part of
this extension.
But for the record let me say that in reference to an airport that
was mentioned in Montana, it is actually 607 miles from Denver, to the
Denver airport. So if you live in that community, it's not just a short
drive to get in a rental car and drive to the Denver Airport. Also, the
Nevada airport that was

[[Page H5263]]

referenced from Salt Lake City, you are talking 234 miles. And the list
goes on and on.

{time} 1430

So that's an issue that we can debate at the appropriate time. Some
changes may need to be made to the Essential Air Service program. But I
think also we need to keep in mind, we're not just talking about
passengers getting from point A to point B when there's hundreds and
hundreds of miles to get to the nearest large hub airport to catch a
flight, but we're also talking about moving medical supplies, donor
organs, and a number of other things. So it's not just passengers.
And let me also say, my friend Mr. Mica mentioned as well that we've
had an open process here. Well, in fact, we have not. The process has
not been open on this extension. In fact, the majority dropped the bill
on Friday without consulting the minority. They did not consult with us
about what may be in the extension. In addition to that, they went to
Rules Committee and asked for a closed rule so that no Member who might
be affected by this legislation or might have an Essential Air Service
airport in their district that may want to go to the Rules Committee
and, in fact, get an open rule or come to the floor to debate the
merits of keeping their airport on the EAS program, they did not have
that opportunity because the majority asked for a closed rule.
Had the majority come to us in the minority and said, We want a clean
extension; we want to move it forward, we wouldn't be here today. We,
in fact, would probably have voice voted this extension. It would have
gone to the Senate. It would have been voice voted there. And, in fact,
we would have been a step closer to making certain that the FAA is able
to operate after the deadline on Saturday.
Finally, let me say that we are frustrated because I've heard
Chairman Mica say many times and, as the ranking member, Mr. Rahall,
has said, We have worked closely together. We have done everything we
can do in order to work together with Mr. Mica and Mr. Petri in order
to get a bill. But I have read reports and I have just heard Mr. Mica
say on the floor again today that, you know, we could wrap this
conference up in 20 minutes. And he said today we could wrap it up
within an hour, that there is only one issue that is remaining.
Just for the record, let me say, if that's the case, we have not been
consulted on that one issue. There are several issues. And just for the
record, I would say major issues that have not been resolved on our
side, on the House side between the majority and minority, let alone
with the other body are: one, funding levels; two, Essential Air
Service; three is repeal of the National Mediation Board rule; four is
the DCA perimeter rule, often referred to as ``slots.''
Other outstanding issues are occupational safety and health
protection for flight attendants, the 3-hour rule for tarmac delays,
the lithium battery issue, and the aircraft activity disclosure to the
public, the BARR program. And I have a list of other things to our
knowledge that have not been resolved.
So when the chairman or others say that we could wrap this up in 20
minutes or in 1 hour, I don't believe that is the case. In fact, I know
it's not the case. We have not been consulted or negotiated to the
extent that we could reach an agreement among ourselves on the House
side, let alone with our colleagues over in the other body. So let me
just say that it's a disappointment to me.
We have worked closely together to move the FAA extension on a
permanent basis. We are here on Wednesday. The FAA extension, in fact,
will expire--the FAA will have to lay off employees this Saturday if,
in fact, this extension is not approved by both bodies and sent to the
President. And the Senate has already told us that they are not going
to accept this extension with this rider, in fact, in the extension.
They will approve the clean extension. And it's my understanding the
other body is going to pass a clean extension and send it over here
sometime today or by the end of the week.
It would be my hope that the majority would, in fact, accept a clean
extension so that the FAA can continue to serve the flying public and
do all of the things that are essential to keeping the safest aviation
system in the world as safe as possible so that we can begin to try and
get a permanent bill and a long-term bill as well.
Finally, I would conclude by saying that we need to appoint
conferees. The Senate has passed their bill in February of this year.
We have passed our bill in April. And we are here now in the latter
part of July, and Chairman Mica is saying that all of these issues have
been resolved but one, and we do not even have conferees appointed. So
I would just encourage the leadership--Ranking Member Rahall. And I
have sent a letter to the Speaker and to the leadership and to the
majority saying, Look, let's appoint conferees. The Senate has
appointed conferees.
The only opportunity we had to appoint conferees in the last Congress
was, in fact, stifled and held up by the Senate and, frankly, by two
Senators from the State of Tennessee over one issue.
Let's get the nonsense behind us. There are things in the Essential
Air program that I would like to see changed. There are things in the
bill that I would like to see us reach an agreement on. The only way to
do that is to get an extension passed so the FAA can get past Saturday
and operate until September 16. It will give us an opportunity to
appoint conferees so that we can meet with the conferees who have
already been appointed in the other body to reach a permanent
agreement.
The American people deserve better than what they're getting today on
the floor of this House, and the American people deserve to know that
we, in fact, are doing everything that we can to move forward to keep
the safest aviation system in the world exactly that--the leader in
safety around the world.
So with that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this extension in
the hopes that we could pass a clean extension.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by urging my
colleagues to support this 21st extension with a very, very modest
change from a purely clean extension in that it yields to the Senate
for a provision that's included in the Senate bill to eliminate, quote-
unquote, ``Essential Air Service for airports within 90 miles of
another airport.''
We've talked about the individual flight subsidy. Let me just look at
this issue from another point of view to make it perfectly clear what
we are talking about.
Eight of the 10 airports that would be affected are because they are
within 90 miles of a hub airport. So that makes it much more convenient
to just drive over. And what's the subsidy to each airport each year?
Let me just mention it: Athens, Georgia, over $1 million of Federal
money so that people don't have to drive 72 miles. We have Morgantown,
West Virginia, right near the Pittsburgh hub, nearly $1.5 million. The
same thing with Hagerstown, over $1 million so you don't have to drive
70-some miles to Dulles. Jonesboro, Arkansas, gets an $800,000 subsidy
when it is right next to the Memphis International Airport. The same
thing, $1.6 million going to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which is 84 miles
from the Pittsburgh International Airport. Franklin/Oil City is getting
a subsidy of nearly $1 million a year. They are 85 miles from the
Pittsburgh International Airport. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, nearly $1.4
million, also by Pittsburgh. And Jackson, Tennessee, $1.2 million in
Federal taxpayer money, which is only 86 miles from the Memphis
International Airport.
It's hardly essential use of Federal taxpayer money to provide
nonessential, subsidized airport service for people who could otherwise
drive in an hour, hour and a half to a hub airport that most of the
people in the area probably are doing already. So it's a very modest
step. We are just doing what the Senate provides. I would urge my
colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011. This
bill would add controversial policy riders that have not been
negotiated and would cause undue harm to critical FAA programs that
support thousands of public and private sector jobs. I urge my
colleagues to pass a clean FAA extension so that capital accounts

[[Page H5264]]

which support Grants-in-Aid for Airports, Facilities and Equipment can
continue to remain functional. Without this much needed funding stream
these programs would be shut down, and approximately 4,000 employees
would be furloughed. With a 9.2% unemployment rate nationwide Congress
must act in a bipartisan manner to help stabilize and enhance job
creation. Again I urge my colleagues to come to a reasonable consensus
and support a clean extension of airport and airway funding.
Mr. PETRI. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 357, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

{time} 1440

Motion to Recommit

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. RAHALL. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rahall of West Virginia moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 2553, to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 7. BAGGAGE FEES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Fees.--No air carrier may charge any fee for the
transport of 4 or fewer items of baggage checked by a member
of the Armed Forces who is--
(1) traveling in scheduled air transportation on official
military orders; and
(2) being deployed on or returning from an overseas
contingency operation.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``baggage'' does not include an item whose weight exceeds 80
pounds.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
West Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, in June, the American public learned that
a major U.S. airline greeted a group of Army soldiers who were
returning home from the front lines in Afghanistan with a bill for
almost $3,000, or $200 apiece for each soldier to check four bags on a
scheduled domestic flight. Americans were rightly outraged by the
incident, which was explained in a YouTube video posted by one of our
troops. In the video, one soldier notes that his fourth bag, for which
he was charged $200, contained an M-4 carbine rifle, a grenade launcher
and a 9-millimeter pistol, ``the tools I used to protect myself and
Afghan citizens while I was deployed.''
A spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars told the Associated
Press the fees were ``the worst welcome home any soldier could receive.
The shock of even being charged is enough to make most service men and
women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are
protecting.''
Members of the Armed Forces who are serving our country on the front
lines should not endure personal financial hardship when they are
traveling to or returning from war zones. Yet, the media's reporting of
the incident last month showed that major U.S. carriers were applying
the same or similar policies across the board. Airlines were charging
soldiers to check four reasonably sized bags and were profiting at the
expense of the brave men and women of the Armed Forces who were going
to or coming home from war.
This amendment, this motion to recommit, prohibits U.S. air carriers
from charging soldiers for up to four bags of checked baggage. It
applies to bags that weigh 80 pounds or less and is consistent with
many airlines' published policies.
I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, as they should, to
support this amendment. If the amendment is adopted, it will not kill
the bill. The House will vote on the bill immediately after this
amendment is adopted.
This motion recognizes a tremendous debt of our gratitude owed by the
United States to the men and women of our Armed Forces. Members of the
Armed Forces who are going to the front lines or coming home from a war
zone should not be given a bill with their boarding passes.
I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that our Nation's
airlines treat our warriors with the respect they deserve for defending
our country. This should be a bipartisan, overwhelming ``yes.''
And I close by saying, vote for our veterans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. I withdraw my point of order, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Madam Speaker, I think it is absolutely outrageous what
happened to those soldiers. As a military officer for 24 years, and as
an airline pilot for 17 years, I think it is absolutely heinous what
happened to those soldiers. Quite frankly, it's outrageous. And I think
we should ask Chairman Mica for open debate on this issue. It's
something that definitely should be taken a look into.
As a matter of fact, I think it is so critical I will ask Chairman
Mica to make sure that this never happens to another United States
servicemember.
But, unfortunately, Madam Chairman, we're bringing this up on a
motion to recommit. My question would be, why didn't we bring this up
earlier, this act? We should be debating this when----
Mr. RAHALL. Will the gentleman yield on his question?
Mr. CRAVAACK. Just a moment, sir, and I will yield.
We should have opened this up when we had open committee, and this
should have been brought up then. But not now, in the motion to
recommit, when we have FAA jobs on the line, and we need to get this
bill moved forward.
I look forward to engaging in that debate a little bit further on,
and I look forward to working with you and ensuring that this does not
happen again, but now is not the time. We need to investigate this a
little bit later on.
I yield to the gentleman fron West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. In response to the gentleman's question asked a few
seconds ago, it was a closed rule. There was no way we could have
brought this up in the amendment process. The gentleman's party
controls the rules of this body and controls the legislative debate.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, we did have an FAA open debate,
Madam Speaker, and we could have brought this up at this time.
Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the incident
did not occur until after the markup of this bill, by the way.
Mr. CRAVAACK. We should not be opening this at this time on a motion
to recommit. I will fully work with the other side in trying to make
sure that this does not happen again to another soldier, and I look
forward to that discussion, but having it right now is a little bit
disingenuous on this FAA reauthorization.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187,
nays 233, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 610]

YEAS--187

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan

[[Page H5265]]

Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--233

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Bachmann
Blumenauer
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Ellison
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Payne
Pelosi
Runyan
Young (AK)

{time} 1513

Messrs. STEARNS, STUTZMAN, PEARCE, MARCHANT, CANTOR, and ROSKAM
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. WELCH, DOGGETT,
SCHRADER, RICHMOND, BISHOP of Georgia, OLVER, and BERMAN changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243,
noes 177, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 611]

AYES--243

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--177

Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.

[[Page H5266]]

Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Bachmann
Blumenauer
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Ellison
Giffords
Hinchey
Hoyer
Payne
Pelosi
Runyan
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lankford) (during the vote). There is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1523

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________