[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.

                          ____________________