[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3643-H3688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). The Clerk will designate the 
amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 
27, 28, 29, and 30 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered 
by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

       Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. USE OF FUNDS FROM PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES TO 
                   PREVENT POWER OUTAGES.

       Section 40117(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) An on-airport project to purchase and install 
     generators to prevent power outages in passenger areas of the 
     airport, to separate an airport's redundant power supply and 
     its main power supply, or for any other on-airport project to 
     prevent power outages or damage to the airport's power 
     supply.''.

       Page 32, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. USE OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS TO PREVENT POWER 
                   OUTAGES.

       Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) an on-airport project to purchase and install 
     generators to prevent power outages in the passenger areas of 
     the airport, separate an airport's redundant power supply and 
     its main power supply, or prevent power outages in the 
     airport or damage to the airport's power supply.''.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

       Page 12, line 23, insert ``a sink or sanitizing 
     equipment,'' after ``surface,''.


      Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman of New Jersey

       Page 13, line 19, strike ``building.'' and insert 
     ``building and will maintain a baby

[[Page H3644]]

     changing table in 1 men's and 1 women's restroom in each 
     passenger terminal building of the airport.''.


     Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington

       Page 25, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Exemption.--Section 47124(b)(3)(D) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Airports with air service under part 121 of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, and more than 25,000 passenger 
     enplanements in calendar year 2014 shall be exempt from any 
     cost-share requirement under this subparagraph.''.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

       Page 32, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 137. GENERAL WRITTEN ASSURANCES.

       Section 47107(a)(17) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``each contract'' and inserting ``if any 
     phase of such project has received funds under this 
     subchapter, each contract''.


       Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois

       Page 37, line 1, insert ``and economic'' after ``health''.
       Page 38, line 5, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 38, line 12, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 38, after line 12, insert the following:
       (5) consider the economic harm or benefits to businesses 
     located party or wholly underneath flight paths most 
     frequently used by aircraft flying at an altitude lower than 
     10,000 feet, including during takeoff or landing.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jayapal of Washington

       Page 37, line 23, strike ``or'' at the end.
       Page 37, after line 23, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent subparagraph accordingly):
       (H) Seattle; or


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

       At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CONTROL TOWERS.

       Section 47116(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Control tower construction.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of section 47124(b)(4)(A), the Secretary may 
     provide grants under this section to an airport sponsor for 
     the construction or improvement of a nonapproach control 
     tower, as defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 
     and installation of air traffic control, communications, and 
     related equipment to be used in that tower. Such grants shall 
     be subject to the distribution requirements of subsection (b) 
     and the eligibility requirements of section 
     47124(b)(4)(B).''.


           Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska

       At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. SMALL AIRPORT REGULATION RELIEF.

       Section 47114(c)(1) is amended by striking subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(F) Special rule for fiscal years 2018 through 2020.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and subject to subparagraph 
     (G), the Secretary shall apportion to a sponsor of an airport 
     under that subparagraph for each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2020 an amount based on the number of passenger boardings at 
     the airport during calendar year 2012 if the airport--
       ``(i) had 10,000 or more passenger boardings during 
     calendar year 2012;
       ``(ii) had fewer than 10,000 passenger boardings during the 
     calendar year used to calculate the apportionment for fiscal 
     year 2018, 2019, or 2020, as applicable, under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(iii) had scheduled air service at any point in the 
     calendar year used to calculate the apportionment.''.


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

       Page 42, line 17, insert the following:

       (k) Authorization for the Transfer of Funds From Department 
     of Defense.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may accept funds from the Secretary of Defense 
     to increase the authorized funding for this section by the 
     amount of such transfer only to carry out projects designed 
     for environmental mitigation at a site previously, but not 
     currently, managed by the Department of Defense.
       (2) Additional grantees.--If additional funds are made 
     available by the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (1), 
     the Administrator may increase the number of grantees under 
     subsection (a).


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Ted Lieu of California

       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LEAD EMISSIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall enter 
     into appropriate arrangements with the National Academies of 
     Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National 
     Research Council will conduct a study and develop a report on 
     aviation gasoline.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an assessment of--
       (1) existing non-leaded fuel alternatives to the aviation 
     gasoline used by piston-powered general aviation aircraft;
       (2) ambient Pb concentrations at and around airports where 
     piston-powered general aviation aircraft are used; and
       (3) mitigation measures to reduce ambient Pb 
     concentrations, including increasing the size of run-up 
     areas, relocating run-up areas, imposing restrictions on 
     aircraft using aviation gasoline, and increasing the use of 
     motor gasoline in piston-powered general aviation aircraft.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress the report developed by the National Research 
     Council pursuant to this section.


            Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York

       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. AIRCRAFT NOISE, EMISSION, AND FUEL BURN REDUCTION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may carry 
     out an aircraft noise, emission, and fuel burn reduction 
     research and development program.
       (b) Elements.--In carrying out the program under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may--
       (1) support efforts to accelerate the development of new 
     aircraft, engine technologies, and jet fuels;
       (2) pursue lighter and more efficient turbine engine 
     components, advanced aircraft wing designs, fuselage 
     structures for innovative aircraft architectures, and smart 
     aircraft and engine control systems; and
       (3) partner with private industry to accomplish the goals 
     of the program.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Bass of California

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. TERMINAL SEQUENCING AND SPACING.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the 
     status of Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) 
     implementation across all completed NextGen Metroplexes with 
     specific information provided by airline regarding the 
     adoption and equipping of aircraft and the training of pilots 
     in its use.


          Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Speier of California

       At the end of title I of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. NOISE AND HEALTH IMPACT TRAINING.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on--
       (1) while maintaining safety as the top priority, whether 
     air traffic controllers and airspace designers are trained on 
     noise and health impact mitigation in addition to efficiency; 
     and
       (2) the prevalence of vectoring flights due to over-crowded 
     departure and arrival paths and alternatives to this 
     practice.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.


           Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. McSally of Arizona

       Page 51, after line 24, insert the following:

       (x) Airport owners and operators.


           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kildee of Michigan

       At the end of subtitle A of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FIREFIGHTING FOAMS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the FAA, using the latest version 
     of National Fire Protection Association 403, ``Standard for 
     Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports'', and 
     in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, aircraft manufacturers and airports, shall 
     not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the 
     performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/
     5210-6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.


            Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Estes of Kansas

       Page 72, line 20, strike ``and''.
       Page 72, after line 20, insert the following:
       (H) aircraft manufacturers; and
       Page 72, line 21, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.
       Page 73, after line 7, insert the following:
       (4) ensuring adequate and timely provision of Flight 
     Standards activities and responses necessary for type 
     certification, operational evaluation, and entry into service 
     of newly manufactured aircraft;
       Page 73, line 8, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 73, line 10, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 73, lines 13 through 14, strike ``the date of 
     enactment of this Act'' and insert ``the date of the 
     establishment of the Task Force''.
       Page 73, lines 23 through 24, strike ``action or cost-
     effective legislative action'' and insert ``, policy, or 
     cost-effective legislative action to improve the efficiency 
     of agency activities''.


            Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

       Page 104, line 10, insert ``and pregnant women'' after 
     ``children''.

[[Page H3645]]

  



        Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts

       Page 109, after line 15, insert the following:
       (a) Workforce Readiness.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall coordinate with government, 
     educational institutions, labor organizations representing 
     aviation maintenance workers, and businesses to develop 
     guidance or model curricula for aviation maintenance 
     technician schools certificated under part 147 of title 14 of 
     the Code of Federal Regulations to ensure workforce readiness 
     for industry needs, including curricula related to training 
     in avionics, troubleshooting, and other areas of industry 
     needs.
       (1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall publish the guidance or 
     model curricula.
       (2) The Administrator shall publish updates to the guidance 
     or model curricula at least once every 2 years from the date 
     of initial publication.
       Page 109, line 16, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 109, line 19, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 110, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 110, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 110, after line 22, insert the following:
       (7) develop recommendations for addressing the needs for 
     government funding, private investment, equipment for 
     training purposes, and other resources necessary to 
     strengthen existing training programs or develop new training 
     programs to support workforce growth in the aviation 
     industry.
       Page 110, line 23, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 111, line 4, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.


            Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Long of Missouri

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3__. EXIT ROWS.

       (a) Review.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall conduct a review of current safety 
     procedures regarding unoccupied exit rows on a covered 
     aircraft in passenger air transportation during all stages of 
     flight.
       (b) Consultation.--In carrying out the review, the 
     Administrator shall consult with air carriers, aviation 
     manufacturers, and labor stakeholders.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the review.
       (d) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered aircraft'' means an aircraft operating under part 
     121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.


            Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Crist of Florida

       Page 112, after line 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 319. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON FAA ENFORCEMENT 
                   POLICY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     complete a study, and report to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the United States Senate on the results 
     thereof, on the effectiveness of Order 8000.373, Federal 
     Aviation Administration Compliance Philosophy, announced on 
     June 26, 2015. Such study shall include information about--
       (1) whether reports of safety incidents increased following 
     the order;
       (2) whether reduced enforcement penalties increased the 
     overall number of safety incidents that occurred; and
       (3) whether FAA enforcement staff registered complaints 
     about reduced enforcement reducing compliance with safety 
     regulations.


       Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Sanford of South Carolina

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__ SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems 
     into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, 
     including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or 
     regulation regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being 
     developed as a model aircraft; except for--
       (1) rules regarding the registration of certain model 
     aircraft pursuant to section 44103; and
       (2) rules regarding unmanned aircraft that by design 
     provide advanced flight capabilities enabling active, 
     sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond 
     the visual line of sight of the operator, if--
       (A) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or 
     recreational use;
       (B) the model aircraft operator is a current member of a 
     community-based organization and whose aircraft is operated 
     in accordance with the organization's safety rules;
       (C) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds 
     unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, 
     inspection, flight test, and operational safety program 
     administered by a community-based organization;
       (D) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not 
     interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;
       (E) the aircraft is not operated over or within the 
     property of a fixed site facility that operates amusement 
     rides available for use by the general public or the property 
     extending 500 lateral feet beyond the perimeter of such 
     facility unless the operation is authorized by the owner of 
     the amusement facility; and
       (F) when flown within 3 miles of an airport, the operator 
     of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport 
     air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is 
     located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation 
     (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location 
     within 3 miles of an airport should establish a mutually 
     agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and 
     the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic 
     facility is located at the airport)).
       (b) Automated Instant Authorization.--When the FAA has 
     established a fully operational and functional automated 
     instant authorization and notification system, the model 
     aircraft operator shall use this system for access to 
     controlled airspace unless flown at a permanent location made 
     known to the Administrator (model aircraft operators flying 
     from a permanent location should establish a mutually agreed 
     upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the 
     airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic 
     facility is located at the airport)).
       (c) Commercial Operation for Instructional or Educational 
     Purposes.--A flight of an unmanned aircraft shall be treated 
     as a flight of a model aircraft for purposes of subsection 
     (a) (regardless of any compensation, reimbursement, or other 
     consideration exchanged or incidental economic benefit gained 
     in the course of planning, operating, or supervising the 
     flight), if the flight is--
       (1) conducted for instructional or educational purposes; 
     and
       (2) operated or supervised by a member of a community-based 
     organization recognized pursuant to subsection (e).
       (d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to 
     pursue enforcement action against persons operating model 
     aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace 
     system.
       (e) Community-based Organization Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``community-based organization'' means a nationwide 
     membership-based associationn entity that--
       (1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       (2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       (3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of 
     model aviation;
       (4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for 
     all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and 
     operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe 
     aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system 
     and the protection and safety of individuals and property on 
     the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety 
     rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft 
     that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, 
     sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond 
     visual line of sight of the operator;
       (5) provides programming and support for any local charter 
     organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
       (6) provides assistance and support in the development and 
     operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.
       (f) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.--In 
     collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the 
     Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 
     days of enactment that identifies the criteria and process 
     required for recognition of nationwide community-based 
     organizations. This recognition shall be in the form of a 
     memorandum of agreement between the FAA and each community-
     based organization and does not require regulatory action to 
     implement.
       (g) Effective Date.--Except for rules to implement remote 
     identification for unmanned aircraft that by design provide 
     advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and 
     controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond the visual line 
     of sight of the operator and for rules regarding the 
     registration of certain model aircraft pursuant to section 
     44103, this section shall become effective when the rule, 
     referred to in section 532 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
     2018, regarding revisions to part 107 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, becomes final.

     SEC. 3__. RECREATIONAL UAS.

       (a) In General .--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall issue rules and regulations 
     relating to small UAS flown for recreational or educational 
     use, and that are not operated within all of the criteria 
     outlined in the special rule for model aircraft in section 
     45505 of title 49, United States Code, or the requirements of 
     part 107 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Regulatory Authority.--When issuing the rules and 
     regulation pursuant to this section, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (1) require the completion of an online or electronic 
     educational tutorial that is focused on knowledge of the 
     primary rules necessary for the safe operation of such UAS 
     and whose completion time is of reasonable length and limited 
     duration;

[[Page H3646]]

       (2) include provisions that enable the operation of such 
     UAS by individuals under the age of 16 without a certificated 
     pilot;
       (3) require UAS operators within Class B, C, D and E 
     airspace to obtain authorization, as the Administrator may 
     determine to be necessary within that airspace, but only 
     after a near- instantaneous automated airspace authorization 
     capability is available for the airspace in which the 
     operator wants o operate; and
       (4) include provisions that provide specific operational 
     rules for UAS operating in close proximity to airports in 
     class G airspace.
       (c) Maintaining Broad Access to UAS Technology.--When 
     issuing rules or regulations for the operation of UAS under 
     this section, the Administrator shall not--
       (1) require the pilot or operator of the UAS to obtain or 
     hold an airman certificate;
       (2) require a practical flight examination, medical 
     examination, or the completion of a flight training program;
       (3) limit such UAS operations to pre-designated fixed 
     locations or uncontrolled airspace; or
       (4) require airworthiness certification of any UAS operated 
     pursuant to this section.
       (d) Collaboration.--The Administrator shall carry out this 
     section in collaboration with industry and community-based 
     organizations.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       Page 138, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 9 
     on page 141 and insert the following (and update the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     ``Sec. 45509. Exception for limited recreational operations 
       of unmanned aircraft

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), 
     and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
     Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without 
     specific certification or operating authority from the 
     Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to 
     all of the following limitations:
       ``(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational 
     purposes.
       ``(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within 
     the programming of a community-based set of safety guidelines 
     that conform with published Federal Aviation Administration 
     advisory materials.
       ``(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight 
     of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-
     located and in direct communication with the operator.
       ``(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not 
     interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
       ``(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within 
     the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E 
     airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains 
     prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before 
     operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and 
     prohibitions.
       ``(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the 
     surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and 
     complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
       ``(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and 
     safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation 
     of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test 
     passage to be made available to the Administrator or law 
     enforcement upon request.
       ``(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance 
     with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is 
     made available to the Administrator or a designee of the 
     Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
       ``(b) Other Operations.--Unmanned aircraft operations that 
     do not conform to the limitations in subsection (a) must 
     comply with all statutes and regulations generally applicable 
     to unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems.
       ``(c) Operations at Fixed Sites.--
       ``(1) Operating procedure required.--Persons operating 
     unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site 
     within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the 
     lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace 
     designated for an airport, or a community-based organization 
     conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall 
     establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the 
     air traffic control facility.
       ``(2) Unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds.--A 
     person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 
     pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or 
     carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if--
       ``(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and 
     limitations developed by a community-based organization and 
     approved by the Administrator; and
       ``(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Updates.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     government and industry stakeholders, including community-
     based organizations, shall initiate a process to periodically 
     update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In updating an operational parameter 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate risks 
     to aviation safety and national security, including risk to 
     the uninvolved public and critical infrastructure;
       ``(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and 
     programming of a community-based organization;
       ``(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and 
     classes of aircraft operating under this section;
       ``(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving 
     unmanned aircraft systems;
       ``(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that 
     updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and 
     leverage, advances in technology; and
       ``(F) equipage requirements that facilitate safe, 
     efficient, and secure operations and further integrate all 
     unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to 
     require a person operating an unmanned aircraft under this 
     section to seek permissive authority of the Administrator, 
     beyond that required in subsection (a) of this section, prior 
     to operation in the National Airspace System.
       ``(e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
     Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a 
     person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the 
     safety of the National Airspace System.
       ``(f) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section prohibits the 
     Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to 
     unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible 
     for the exception set forth in this section, relating to--
       ``(1) updates to the operational parameters for unmanned 
     aircraft in subsection (a);
       ``(2) the registration and marking of unmanned aircraft;
       ``(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and 
     operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated 
     unmanned aircraft; and
       ``(4) other standards consistent with maintaining the 
     safety and security of the National Airspace System.
       ``(g) Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, 
     other industry stakeholders, and community-based aviation 
     organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and 
     safety test that can be administered electronically.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The Administrator shall ensure the 
     aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to 
     adequately demonstrate an operator's--
       ``(A) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge; and
       ``(B) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration 
     regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of 
     an unmanned aircraft system in the National Airspace 
     System.''.


           Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa of Hawaii

       Page 157, line 2, strike the semicolon and insert ``, 
     including during emergency situations that may threaten 
     public safety;''


           Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota

       Page 161, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 342. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     establish a pilot program to enable enhanced drone operations 
     as required in the October 25, 2017 Presidential Memorandum 
     entitled ``Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot 
     Program'' and described in 82 Federal Register 50301.
       (b) Applications.--The Secretary shall accept applications 
     from State, local, and Tribal governments, in partnership 
     with unmanned aircraft system operators and other private-
     sector stakeholders, to test and evaluate the integration of 
     civil and public UAS operations into the low-altitude 
     national airspace system.
       (c) Objectives.--The purpose of the pilot program is to 
     accelerate existing UAS integration plans by working to solve 
     technical, regulatory, and policy challenges, while enabling 
     advanced UAS operations in select areas subject to ongoing 
     safety oversight and cooperation between the Federal 
     Government and applicable State, local, or Tribal 
     jurisdictions, in order to--
       (1) accelerate the safe integration of UAS into the NAS by 
     testing and validating new concepts of beyond visual line of 
     sight operations in a controlled environment, focusing on 
     detect and avoid technologies, command and control links, 
     navigation, weather, and human factors;
       (2) address ongoing concerns regarding the potential 
     security and safety risks associated with UAS operating in 
     close proximity to human beings and critical infrastructure 
     by ensuring that operators communicate more effectively with 
     Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement to enable 
     law enforcement to determine if a UAS operation poses such a 
     risk;
       (3) promote innovation in and development of the United 
     States unmanned aviation industry, especially in sectors such 
     as agriculture, emergency management, inspection, and 
     transportation safety, in which there are significant public 
     benefits to be gained from the deployment of UAS; and
       (4) identify the most effective models of balancing local 
     and national interests in UAS integration.

[[Page H3647]]

       (d) Application Submission.--The Secretary shall establish 
     application requirements and require applicants to include 
     the following information:
       (1) Identification of the airspace to be used, including 
     shape files and altitudes.
       (2) Description of the types of planned operations.
       (3) Identification of stakeholder partners to test and 
     evaluate planned operations.
       (4) Identification of available infrastructure to support 
     planned operations.
       (5) Description of experience with UAS operations and 
     regulations.
       (6) Description of existing UAS operator and any other 
     stakeholder partnerships and experience.
       (7) Description of plans to address safety, security, 
     competition, privacy concerns, and community outreach.
       (e) Reasonable Time, Manner, and Place Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Requests.--The Lead Applicant may request reasonable 
     time, place and manner limitations on low-altitude UAS 
     operations within its jurisdiction to facilitate the proposed 
     development and testing of new and innovative UAS concepts of 
     operations in addition to other selection criteria.
       (B) Self-implementing provisions.--The Secretary shall 
     require jurisdictions to ensure that any time, place and 
     manner limitations, including those adopted through means 
     such as legislation or regulation, include self-implementing 
     provisions that automatically terminate those restrictions 
     upon the termination of the Memorandum of Agreement.
       (C) Monitoring and enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--Monitoring and enforcement of any 
     limitations enacted pursuant to this pilot project shall be 
     the responsibility of the jurisdiction.
       (ii) Savings provision.--Nothing in clause (i) may be 
     construed to prevent the Secretary from enforcing Federal 
     law.
       (2) Examples.--Examples of reasonable time, manner, and 
     place limitations may include--
       (A) prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening 
     rush hours or only permitting flight during specified hours 
     such as daylight hours, sufficient to ensure reasonable 
     airspace access;
       (B) establishing designated take-off and landing zones, 
     limiting operations over moving locations or fixed site 
     public road and parks, sidewalks or private property based on 
     zoning density, or other land use considerations;
       (C) requiring notice to public safety or zoning or land use 
     authorities before operating;
       (D) limiting UAS operations within designated altitudes 
     within airspace over the jurisdiction;
       (E) specifying maximum speed of flight over specified 
     areas;
       (F) prohibiting operations in connection with community or 
     sporting events that do not remain in one place (for example, 
     parades and running events); and
       (G) mandating equipage.
       (f) Selection Criteria.--In making determinations, the 
     Secretary shall evaluate whether applications meet or exceed 
     the following criteria:
       (1) Overall economic, geographic, and climatic diversity of 
     the selected jurisdictions.
       (2) Overall diversity of the proposed models of government 
     involvement.
       (3) Overall diversity of the UAS operations to be 
     conducted.
       (4) The location of critical infrastructure.
       (5) The involvement of commercial entities in the proposal 
     and their ability to advance objectives that may serve the 
     public interest as a result of further integration of UAS 
     into the NAS.
       (6) The involvement of affected communities in, and their 
     support for, participating in the pilot program.
       (7) The commitment of the governments and UAS operators 
     involved in the proposal to comply with requirements related 
     to national defense, homeland security, and public safety and 
     to address competition, privacy, and civil liberties 
     concerns.
       (8) The commitment of the governments and UAS operators 
     involved in the proposal to achieve the following policy 
     objectives:
       (A) Promoting innovation and economic development.
       (B) Enhancing transportation safety.
       (C) Enhancing workplace safety.
       (D) Improving emergency response and search and rescue 
     functions.
       (E) Using radio spectrum efficiently and competitively.
       (g) Implementation.--The Secretary shall use the data 
     collected and experience gained over the course of this pilot 
     program to--
       (1) identify and resolve technical challenges to UAS 
     integration;
       (2) address airspace use to safely and efficiently 
     integrate all aircraft;
       (3) inform operational standards and procedures to improve 
     safety (for example, detect and avoid capabilities, 
     navigation and altitude performance, and command and control 
     link);
       (4) inform FAA standards that reduce the need for waivers 
     (for example, for operations over human beings, night 
     operations, and beyond visual line of sight); and
       (5) address competing interests regarding UAS operational 
     expansion, safety, security, roles and responsibilities of 
     non-Federal Government entities, and privacy issues.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Lead Applicant'' means an eligible State, 
     local or Tribal government that has submitted a timely 
     application.
       (2) The term ``NAS'' means the low-altitude national 
     airspace system.
       (3) The term ``UAS'' means unmanned aircraft system.


          Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Schiff of California

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3__. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) UAS Safety Enforcement.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to 
     utilize available remote detection and identification 
     technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement 
     actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that 
     are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws, 
     including regulations.
       (b) Reporting.--As part of the program, the Administrator 
     shall establish and publicize a mechanism for the public and 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement to report suspected 
     operation of unmanned aircraft in violation of applicable 
     Federal laws and regulations.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, and 
     annually thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the following:
       (1) The number of unauthorized unmanned aircraft operations 
     detected in restricted airspace, including in and around 
     airports, together with a description of such operations.
       (2) The number of enforcement cases brought by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration or other Federal agencies for 
     unauthorized operation of unmanned aircraft detected through 
     the program, together with a description of such cases.
       (3) Recommendations for safety and operational standards 
     for unmanned aircraft detection and mitigation systems.
       (4) Recommendations for any legislative or regulatory 
     changes related to mitigation or detection or identification 
     of unmanned aircraft systems.


         Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin

       At the end of subtitle B of title III of the bill, add the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. ACTIVELY TETHERED PUBLIC UAS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall issue such regulations as are 
     necessary to authorize the use of certain actively tethered 
     public unmanned aircraft system by government public safety 
     agencies without any requirement to obtain a certificate of 
     waiver, certificate of authorization, or other approval by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall establish risk-based operational 
     conditions for operation of actively tethered public unmanned 
     aircraft systems by government public safety agencies that 
     recognize and accommodate the unique operational 
     circumstances of such systems, including the requirements 
     that the aircraft component may only be operated--
       (1) within the line of sight of the operator;
       (2) less than 200 feet above the ground;
       (3) within class G airspace; and
       (4) at least 5 statute miles from the geographic center of 
     a tower-controller airport or airport denoted on a current 
     aeronautical chart published by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, except that an actively tethered public 
     unmanned aircraft system may be operated closer than 5 
     statute miles to the airport if--
       (A) the operator of the actively tethered public unmanned 
     aircraft system provides prior notice to the airport operator 
     and receives, for a tower-controlled airport, prior approval 
     from the air traffic control facilitate located at the 
     airport; or
       (B) the exigent circumstances of an emergency prevent the 
     giving of notice contemplated by clause (i) and the actively 
     tethered public unmanned aircraft system is operated outside 
     the flight path of any manned aircraft.
       (c) Definition of Actively Tethered Public Unmanned 
     Aircraft System.--The term ``actively tethered public 
     unmanned aircraft system'' means public unmanned aircraft 
     system in which the unmanned aircraft component--
       (1) weighs 4.4 pounds or less, including payload;
       (2) is physically attached to a ground station with a taut, 
     appropriately load-rated tether that provides continuous 
     power to the unmanned aircraft; and
       (3) is capable of being controlled and retrieved by such 
     ground station through physical manipulation of the tether.

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gosar). Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


Modification to Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
25 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

[[Page H3648]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 25 printed in part A of House Report 
No. 115-650 offered by Mr. Sanford of South Carolina:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       The amendment is modified as follows:
       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__ SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems 
     into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, 
     including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or 
     regulation regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being 
     developed as a model aircraft, except for--
       (1) rules regarding the registration of certain model 
     aircraft pursuant to section 44103; and
       (2) rules regarding unmanned aircraft that by design 
     provide advanced flight capabilities enabling active, 
     sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond 
     the visual line of sight of the operator, if--
       (A) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or 
     recreational use;
       (B) the model aircraft operator is a current member of a 
     community-based organization and whose aircraft is operated 
     in accordance with the organization's safety rules;
       (C) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds 
     unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, 
     inspection, flight test, and operational safety program 
     administered by a community-based organization;
       (D) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not 
     interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;
       (E) the aircraft is not operated over or within the 
     property of a fixed site facility that operates amusement 
     rides available for use by the general public or the property 
     extending 500 lateral feet beyond the perimeter of such 
     facility unless the operation is authorized by the owner of 
     the amusement facility; and
       (F) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator 
     of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport 
     air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is 
     located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation 
     (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location 
     within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually 
     agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and 
     the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic 
     facility is located at the airport)).
       (b) Automated Instant Authorization.--When the FAA has 
     developed and implemented an automated airspace authorization 
     system for the airspace in which the operator wants to 
     operate, the model aircraft operator shall use this system 
     for authorization to controlled airspace unless flown--
       (1) at a permanent location agreed to by the Administrator; 
     and
       (2) in accordance with a mutually agreed upon operating 
     procedure established with the airport operator and the 
     airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic 
     facility is located at the airport).
       (d) Commercial Operation for Instructional or Educational 
     Purposes.--A flight of an unmanned aircraft shall be treated 
     as a flight of a model aircraft for purposes of subsection 
     (a) (regardless of any compensation, reimbursement, or other 
     consideration exchanged or incidental economic benefit gained 
     in the course of planning, operating, or supervising the 
     flight), if the flight is--
       (1) conducted for instructional or educational purposes; 
     and
       (2) operated or supervised by a member of a community-based 
     organization recognized pursuant to subsection (e).
       (e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to 
     pursue enforcement action against persons operating model 
     aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace 
     system.
       (f) Community-based Organization Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``community-based organization'' means a nationwide 
     membership-based association entity that--
       (1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       (2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986;
       (3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of 
     model aviation;
       (4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for 
     all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and 
     operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe 
     aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system 
     and the protection and safety of individuals and property on 
     the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety 
     rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft 
     that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, 
     sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond 
     visual line of sight of the operator;
       (5) provides programming and support for any local charter 
     organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
       (6) provides assistance and support in the development and 
     operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.
       (g) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.--In 
     collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the 
     Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 
     days of enactment that identifies the criteria and process 
     required for recognition of nationwide community-based 
     organizations. This recognition shall be in the form of a 
     memorandum of agreement between the FAA and each community-
     based organization and does not require regulatory action to 
     implement.
       (h) Effective Date.--Except for rules to implement remote 
     identification for unmanned aircraft that by design provide 
     advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and 
     controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond the visual line 
     of sight of the operator and for rules regarding the 
     registration of certain model aircraft pursuant to section 
     44103, this section shall become effective when the rule, 
     referred to in section 532 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
     2018, regarding revisions to part 107 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, becomes final.

     SEC. 3__. RECREATIONAL UAS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall issue rules and regulations 
     relating to small UAS flown for recreational or educational 
     use, and that are not operated within all of the criteria 
     outlined in the special rule for model aircraft in section 
     45505 of title 49, United States Code, or the requirements of 
     part 107 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Regulatory Authority.--When issuing the rules and 
     regulation pursuant to this section, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (1) require the completion of an online or electronic 
     educational tutorial that is focused on knowledge of the 
     primary rules necessary for the safe operation of such UAS 
     and whose completion time is of reasonable length and limited 
     duration;
       (2) include provisions that enable the operation of such 
     UAS by individuals under the age of 16 without a certificated 
     pilot;
       (3) require UAS operators within Class B, C, D and E 
     airspace to obtain authorization, as the Administrator may 
     determine to be necessary within that airspace, but only 
     after the Federal Aviation Administration has developed and 
     implemented an automated airspace authorization system for 
     the airspace in which the operator wants to operate; and
       (4) include provisions that provide specific operational 
     rules for UAS operating in close proximity to airports in 
     class G airspace.
       (c) Maintaining Broad Access to UAS Technology.--When 
     issuing rules or regulations for the operation of UAS under 
     this section, the Administrator shall not--
       (1) require the pilot or operator of the UAS to obtain or 
     hold an airman certificate;
       (2) require a practical flight examination, medical 
     examination, or the completion of a flight training program;
       (3) limit such UAS operations to pre-designated fixed 
     locations or uncontrolled airspace; or
       (4) require airworthiness certification of any UAS operated 
     pursuant to this section.
       (d) Collaboration.--The Administrator shall carry out this 
     section in collaboration with industry and community-based 
     organizations.

  Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading of the modification be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en 
bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and the 
minority.
  These Members put forth thoughtful amendments, and I am pleased to be 
able to support moving them en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of these amendments en bloc. 
This grouping includes many Democratic and Republican amendments, and 
each, as the chairman has said, has been approved by the majority and 
the minority for consideration en bloc.
  Among the amendments in this package is my comprehensive solution to 
the ever-growing list of safety and security concerns that have 
resulted from an unwise provision of law adopted in 2012.
  That law prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from 
promulgating any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for hobby 
or recreational purposes.
  Let me repeat: any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for 
hobby or recreational purposes.
  This was put in at the behest of model aircraft folks, who have a 
long

[[Page H3649]]

and very responsible history, know the rules of the road in the air, 
but now there are millions of other people now operating relatively 
inexpensive drones. Things have changed pretty dramatically in that 
time period, and we sorely need some reasonable regulations.
  There are very strong national security concerns expressed by 
Homeland and Secret Service and others, and they are saying that 
basically they are going to hold back any rules regarding drones until 
they can be assured that the operators and the drone can be identified, 
which the commercial people can easily do.

                              {time}  1345

  It would be an expense for the recreational manufacturers so there is 
a competing amendment that is more conciliatory toward the Chinese 
drone manufacturers, which is a concern I don't have.
  Sooner or later, one of these little toy drones is going to take down 
an aircraft and people are going to die. Plain and simple. They have 
already conducted tests on the hull, and they have found that a small 
quadcopter can cause fatal damage to aircraft controls. And they 
haven't even done the ingestion test yet into a jet engine, a turbine 
engine, where you will see more uncontained failures like the one we 
saw last week.
  So it is critical that we get a handle on this and the proliferation 
of these with people with little or no experience or knowledge of 
aviation rules. Countless stakeholders are supporting my version, which 
would be the commercial drone industry, U.S. airlines and pilots, air 
traffic controllers, aircraft manufacturers, State and local entities.
  They have all been asking for modification or repeal of that 
provision prohibiting the FAA from regulating recreational drone users. 
Until this is done, our skies will be less safe and the true potential 
of the commercial drone industry will never be unlocked because of the 
security concerns that I already mentioned.
  My amendment, among other things, grants the FAA the authority to 
impose standards on recreational users as needed, ensure the safety of 
our airspace system going forward, including requirements remotely 
identifying and tracking drone operators. That first step is critical 
to protecting sensitive facilities, assets, and addressing the concerns 
of Homeland Security, Secret Service, and others.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment en bloc, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds all Members not to traffic the 
well while another Member is under recognition.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a valued member of the 
committee.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am proud to speak in 
support of this en bloc amendment, and then also in support of H.R. 4.
  It is finally a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. Two programs of 
vital importance to my district are the Essential Air Service program 
and the Contract Tower Program. Both programs are critical to rural 
areas and are protected in this bill.
  The bill also includes a provision I authorized and authored to 
ensure small low-risk microdrones can be operated safely, but also 
under different operational requirements than larger drones. Safely and 
more appropriately integrating microdrones into the airspace will 
foster innovation at companies like Horizon Hobby in my district and 
incentivize better operator compliance.
  H.R. 4 also includes important customer service provisions. It 
prohibits involuntary bumping of passengers once they have already 
boarded an aircraft. It makes fees and taxes more transparent, and when 
consumers have complaints about their flying experience, this bill will 
allow them to call a hotline or use an app on their smartphone.
  I also want to mention the disaster title of this bill. It is 
actually a shame that I have to speak about this again today because 
this House already passed this legislation last December. 
Unfortunately, our colleagues in the Senate stripped these provisions 
out of the disaster supplemental package we passed earlier this year, 
but now we have an opportunity to finally get this crucial legislation 
signed into law.
  Included in this package is my bill, the Disaster Declaration 
Improvement Act, which requires FEMA to place a greater weight and 
consideration on severe, localized impact of damage following a 
disaster. Passing this bill will have real impact in States like 
Illinois where a large portion of our population is concentrated in a 
small geographical area in the northeast portion of our State.
  Enacting this language into law will help level the playing field, 
and help ensure rural areas like my district are given a fair shake 
when disasters happen and help is needed.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for 
working to include this disaster package in this bill, and for all of 
the hard work on the underlying bill, and I urge adoption of the bill.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and Chairman 
Shuster for their work on this bill, on this block of amendments, in 
which I have an amendment that I drafted that would allow airports to 
apply for grants from the small airport fund to construct air traffic 
control towers for participation in the Federal Contract Tower Program.
  This provision will ensure that our airspace remains the gold 
standard for safety by helping small airports currently operating 
without towers to invest in lifesaving safety infrastructure.
  It is my understanding that because this will be a new eligibility, 
the FAA will need to classify the construction of an air traffic 
control tower under the Airports Capital Improvement Plan to ensure 
that it is scored properly for purposes of determining grant awards 
through the national priority ranking system.
  Mr. Chair, I ask the chairman if he will agree with me that: first, 
the FAA has never classified control towers under ACIP before; second, 
that the FAA should plan to ensure that these high-priority projects 
are classified properly for consideration in grant decisions; and 
third, that they should be classified in a manner that provides them 
with an appropriate, level playing field with other projects to ensure 
competitiveness, and I ask the chairman if he agrees on these three 
provisions.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, we will be committed to working with the 
gentleman as we move forward.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Lewis), a member of our committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for all of 
his hard on H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that my amendment to codify the FAA's 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integrated Pilot Program is included in this 
en bloc package.
  Drones are an innovation that I know our country is anxious to take 
advantage of. However, it brings with it a need to rethink and redefine 
some current policies. Aviation regulations that manage the flow of air 
traffic at 30,000 feet, or even 1,000 feet, do not make sense when 
managing the operation of a UAS 5 feet off the ground.
  Congress should formally support this pilot program and learn from 
the data gathered here. We must also recognize the importance of non-
Federal bodies like States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to 
be part of the drone oversight. This pilot program, which my amendment 
codifies and which stem from a White House proposal, will help us do 
just that, and it has been widely supported.
  In fact, drone associations, traditional aviation groups, and large 
companies wrote in support of the pilot program. We hope that by 
Congress codifying the pilot program, the Department of Transportation 
will now expand the pilot program to further participation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

[[Page H3650]]

  

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and 
Ranking Member DeFazio for including two of my amendments in the en 
bloc package. The gentlemen have set a high bar for leadership and 
collegiality through this process, and I look forward to working with 
them as the FAA implements this bill.
  My amendments focus on two issues important not only to the residents 
of Washington's Seventh District, but across the country; namely, the 
issue of airplane noise and infrastructure needs of fast-growing 
airports like Sea-Tac.
  Many of our communities with large and medium airports are growing by 
leaps and bounds. According to Airports Council International, over the 
last 10 years, Sea-Tac's passenger traffic has grown by 52.6 percent, 
second only to San Francisco. We need to be certain that our 
communities are able to prepare for that growth, while still ensuring 
that they remain livable.
  These amendments will help to build that evidence base, and I deeply 
appreciate the consideration.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Estes).
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to propose an amendment 
to section 232 of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act.
  As a Representative of the Fourth District of Kansas, which includes 
Wichita, also known as the Air Capital of the World, I have a deep 
appreciation for the importance of the aviation industry in our region 
and country.
  For more than 100 years, our community has pioneered aviation and 
manufacturing. Today, the greater Wichita area is home to many of the 
world's largest aviation manufacturers and produces nearly 50 percent 
of all general aviation planes built.
  Without question, aviation is a great source of pride for all 
Kansans, and I want to thank Chairman Shuster and the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts to support the industry 
and modernize the FAA.
  As part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress has tasked 
the FAA administrator to establish a task force on flight standards 
reform. I believe creating this task force to improve aviation safety 
standards is a needed and overdue initiative.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kansas.
  Mr. ESTES of Kansas. H.R. 4 mandates the task force be comprised of 
representatives from air carriers, general and business aviation, 
repair stations, unmanned aviation systems, flight schools, and 
aviation safety inspectors.

  Today, I am offering an amendment to the task force to also include 
representatives of aircraft manufacturers. I believe those responsible 
for producing our Nation's aircraft can play a valuable role in 
updating aviation standards and should have a voice.
  I want to thank our colleagues for their attention to the industry 
and consideration of this amendment, and ask that they support the FAA 
Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for including my amendment in the en bloc.
  My amendment would require the FAA to study the economic harm caused 
by excessive aircraft noise on communities and businesses near major 
airports.
  Companies adjacent to airports, such as O'Hare International Airport 
in my district, see that flight paths have to contend with the economic 
activity in that region, and noise disrupts their customers and 
interferes with business, in addition to the physiological effects that 
constant noise has on employees.
  Under my amendment, the FAA will study what happens to businesses 
when they are subject to excessive noise throughout the workday. This 
will include, but is not limited to, employee productivity and 
retention, workplace morale and satisfaction, and other data to help 
policymakers grasp the full effect of airport noise on neighborhoods.
  This is a bipartisan, commonsense amendment, and again, I thank the 
committee for including it in the en bloc.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crist).
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their leadership and bipartisanship on this bill.
  Americans who watched 60 Minutes last weekend or who read the Tampa 
Bay Times were shocked by serious airline safety concerns--specifically 
with Allegiant Airlines, a carrier that operates 95 percent of the 
traffic at my hometown airport. It raises questions about the FAA's 
``compliance philosophy,'' focused on fewer enforcement actions, more 
working quietly with the airlines behind the scenes on safety issues.
  I sure hope it is true that airlines are more likely to self-report 
safety incidents if they do not fear retribution, but lives are at 
stake, and we must get the facts. My amendment would require an 
investigation into whether this hands-off approach is, in fact, 
working. Profits can never trump passenger safety.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this straightforward 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), my neighbor to the north.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of my amendment, which would modify the 
Airport Improvement Program to require the FAA to explicitly consider 
the emergency preparedness needs of the communities served when 
reviewing an airport's master plan.
  Currently, the FAA relies primarily on a number of enplanements when 
making their funding determinations under the AIP. That disadvantages 
rural airports like William R. Fairchild International Airport in my 
district, which serves as a critical component of the State's and 
FEMA's emergency response plan for the region, but has relatively few 
enplanements.
  This commonsense improvement would help ensure that Fairchild and 
other airports like it will be able to secure the funding necessary to 
maintain their runway and other critical infrastructure so that the 
resources are available when disaster strikes.
  This matters to folks in my neck of the woods who live in the shadow 
of the Cascadia subduction zone. When the big one hits, the Fairchild 
Airport will be essential to deploying emergency supplies, as well as 
for evacuating people to safety.
  I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for 
their support of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, Soto amendment number 3 to H.R. 4, FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018, would require a sink or sanitizing 
equipment in the lactation area in commercial service airports.
  This small but significant change would benefit traveling mothers and 
children. A 2014 study in Breastfeeding Medicine showed that only 62 of 
the top 100 passenger-volume U.S. airports labeled themselves as 
``breastfeeding friendly''. However, they found that only eight of the 
100 surveyed airports provided the minimum requirements for a lactation 
room, as set forth under Section 122 of this bill.
  I am pleased to see that this bill would require medium or large hub 
airports to maintain lactation areas in each passenger terminal 
building with minimum requirements of a chair, table, and electrical 
outlet. With the inclusion of my amendment, traveling mother will now 
have access to sanitation equipment, too.
  I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the staff of 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their 
support and for working with me on this amendment. I thank my 
colleagues for their support on this issue.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, Soto amendment, Soto number 21, to the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018, H.R. 4, would require the FAA 
Administrator to also consider the potential emergency medical needs of 
pregnant women when evaluating the minimum contents of approved medical 
kits--currently the bill only

[[Page H3651]]

specifies the consideration of children's emergency medical needs.
  Obstetrical symptoms, while rare causes of in-flight medical 
emergencies, should be given consideration when evaluating the adequacy 
of in-flight emergency medical kits.
  I am pleased to see that this bill would require the consideration of 
the potential emergency medical needs of pregnant women. I thank 
Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the staff of the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for their support and for 
working with me on this amendment. I also thank my colleagues for their 
support on this issue.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc #1 
amendment package to H.R. 4, which includes my amendment (#2). I am 
proud to offer an amendment that responds to a key and grave local 
matter.
  My amendment is simple: It would allow airports to use Federal funds 
to buy generators for passenger areas of the airport, something they 
currently are not able to do. It would also let airports separate 
backup power from the main power lines, and to complete other projects 
to prevent power outages using A.I.P. and P.F.C. funds.
  As you know, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the 
world's busiest airport, is located in my Congressional district. Last 
December, an underground fire disabled both the airport's primary and 
backup power supplies. This caused a power outage that lasted for 11 
hours, cancelling hundreds of flights and stranding passengers and 
employees on planes and in dark terminals.
  Fortunately, no one was hurt, but this event raised important public 
safety questions. The City of Atlanta and Georgia Power are looking 
into what happened and what can be done to prevent a similar event from 
occurring in the future. I look forward to their report. My common-
sense amendment will give airports the flexibility they need to keep 
the lights on and passengers safe.
  Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to all the 
police, firefighters, electricians, and airport, airline, and MARTA 
employees for their work to assist stranded travelers. I would also 
like to thank the tens of thousands of passengers who remained calm and 
patient throughout this unprecedented ordeal.
  I appreciate the support of the Chairman and the Ranking Member and 
thank them and their staffs for working with me on this issue. I look 
forward to continuing to work with them to keep the travelling public 
safe.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments, as modified, were agreed to.

                              {time}  1400


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Roskam

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION AND SAFETY STUDY.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall initiate a study to review and 
     evaluate existing studies and analyses of the relationship 
     between jet aircraft approach and takeoff speeds and 
     corresponding noise impacts on communities surrounding 
     airports.
       (b) Considerations.--In conducting the study initiated 
     under subsection (a), the Administrator shall determine--
       (1) whether a decrease in jet aircraft approach or takeoff 
     speeds results in significant aircraft noise reductions;
       (2) whether the jet aircraft approach or takeoff speed 
     reduction necessary to achieve significant noise reductions--
       (A) jeopardizes aviation safety; or
       (B) decreases the efficiency of the National Airspace 
     System, including lowering airport capacity, increasing 
     travel times, or increasing fuel burn;
       (3) the advisability of using jet aircraft approach or 
     takeoff speeds as a noise mitigation technique; and
       (4) if the Administrator determines that using jet aircraft 
     approach or takeoff speeds as a noise mitigation technique is 
     advisable, whether any of the metropolitan areas specifically 
     identified in section 157(b)(2) would benefit from such a 
     noise mitigation technique without a significant impact to 
     aviation safety or the efficiency of the National Airspace 
     System.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the study initiated under subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, briefly, the Roskam amendment does the 
following:
  It recognizes that my constituency, and I think a lot of others, want 
the benefits of living near a large international airport but not as 
much of the burden. Here is the backstory about what is going on.
  My constituency is right next door to O'Hare Airport, which, as an 
international airport, brings incredible convenience to my flying 
constituents and also incredible commerce and opportunity. That is a 
good thing.
  The problem is the burdens of the noise of the airport rest 
disproportionately with some communities. These are communities that 
have found themselves with different flight patterns in different 
situations where, all of a sudden, a flight pattern from years ago is 
now something that they are seeing overhead.
  One constituent of mine in Wayne, Illinois, complained that the noise 
sometimes is 30 seconds apart for hours on end. Another complained that 
their house actually shakes because of the planes that are flying so 
close. Mr. Chairman, you can imagine how difficult this would be to 
live in this type of situation.
  Realizing that we want the benefits of an international airport and 
also as quiet a situation as possible, I have worked with my Republican 
and Democratic colleagues to find common ground.
  A scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has 
completed computer modeling and found that reducing plane takeoff 
speeds by 35 miles per hour would dramatically reduce the noise 
pollution and only lengthen flight time by a mere 30 seconds.
  This commonsense amendment directs the FAA to study this proposal and 
report back to Congress on whether or not this will alleviate the 
nuisance that too many of my constituents have had to deal with.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from across the aisle, 
Congresswoman Speier, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am in favor of it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I actually, recently, had a conversation with the Acting FAA 
Administrator on this very subject. I think it is something that could 
help mitigate. Since we have moved to performance-based navigation and 
changed for more efficient approaches to safe fuel, the airlines are 
benefiting tremendously, but it has concentrated the noise over a 
narrow area.
  I have also asked the FAA if it would be possible to vary the 
approaches on performance-based so that you are not always, every day, 
every hour, every minute, going over exactly the same position. I think 
that is also something they should look at.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon 
for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

[[Page H3652]]

  


     SEC. 1__. JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES.

       Section 330(e) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``2 years'' and 
     inserting ``150 days as set forth in section 139(l)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B)(i) by striking ``2 years'' and 
     inserting ``150 days as set forth in section 139(l)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the bipartisan Denham-Costa 
amendment which eliminates duplication of environmental reviews.
  The MAP-21 highway bill created the NEPA assignment program in 2012, 
which allows States to assume responsibility for environmental review, 
consultation, and compliance of NEPA for Federal aid highway projects 
and other transportation projects. The program removes an entire layer 
of Federal bureaucracy from the NEPA process, allowing States and 
counties to operate more efficiently.
  NEPA assignment has been a success, saving time and cost of 
infrastructure projects across six States: California, Texas, Florida, 
Ohio, Utah, and Alaska. Two more States, Arizona and Nebraska, are in 
the process of applying, and all 50 States are eligible to participate.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee built on the success 
of the NEPA assignment program in the 2015 FAST Act by establishing the 
NEPA reciprocity program. The NEPA reciprocity program allows States 
with environmental laws that are at least as stringent as NEPA to make 
the approval of reviews under State laws and regulations and in 
replacement of NEPA. This allows States to remove parallel and 
redundant NEPA requirements from their own environmental process, which 
will get projects built faster and at a lower cost. In other words, 
this not only allows one environmental review, but stops us from doing 
two.
  As reasonable and promising as this program is, the judicial review 
period or window that litigants can challenge a record of decisions is 
nearly five times longer than for Federal aid highway projects that are 
subject to NEPA. The judicial review period for the reciprocity program 
is 2 years, substantially increasing the risk of litigation and 
dissuading States from pursuing the program.
  This amendment harmonizes the statute of limitation for the program 
with other Federal highway projects to 150 days. Instead of delaying 2 
years for lawsuits, we do it in 150 days, the same as all other Federal 
highway projects.
  This commonsense change would render the program workable as 
originally intended in the FAST Act. This program would allow States 
impacted by the 2017 major disasters to rebuild devastated communities 
faster and at a lower cost, saving taxpayer dollars.
  Many wildfire-impacted counties in California have recognized the 
potential benefits of NEPA reciprocity for their recovery efforts and 
are pushing the State to participate. This amendment would allow 
California and other impacted States with major disasters, like Texas 
and Florida, to apply and rebuild in short order.
  In September 2017, the Department of Transportation issued the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, and the comment period closed in November. DOT 
should issue the rule to establish the program soon, and this 
modification must be in place for the program to be workable at that 
time.
  There has been a lot of discussion about environmental review and 
permitting reform being included in the infrastructure package, and for 
good reason: projects take too long and they cost way too much money. 
We have an opportunity to ensure streamlining programs that are already 
law are working correctly by passing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
being offered by Congressman Denham and me to H.R. 4, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Together, we have worked long and hard to reduce the duplicative 
environmental permitting requirements that contribute, as we all know, 
to delays in delivery of important transportation projects throughout 
the Nation and throughout California, as both Congressman Denham and I 
have experienced.
  California remains at the forefront of finding innovative ways to 
streamline the transportation delivery project without compromising the 
natural environment and complying with environmental laws. As a matter 
of fact, we have a very big initiative that was passed last year to 
provide another $52 billion in construction projects over the next 10 
years. So this is an important amendment.
  In 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which implemented a pilot 
program to provide reciprocity for environmental permitting for States 
like California that have laws that provide equal or greater 
environmental protection. That is the case with California. That is why 
this amendment is so applicable and why it makes such good common 
sense.
  This amendment would further streamline the delegation process, as 
the gentleman noted, reduce project delivery times and costs, lead to 
more projects being constructed at a faster rate, and improve our 
deteriorating infrastructure.
  For all these good reasons, we ought to adopt this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to concur.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I rose in opposition, my 
principal concern is this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation 
as we adopted the FAST Act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot 
projects.
  We gave the task, as we normally do, to the Department of 
Transportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the 
pilot program, but DOT has not yet acted to establish those rules. So I 
have concerns about putting strictures on the Department of 
Transportation before they have had an opportunity to implement the 
rule, which, hopefully, will be soon forthcoming. I assume it is not 
one of these rules that the President has held up from being issued, 
since it would be something beneficial, if properly done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 
61, 62, 64, and 65 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered 
by Shuster of Pennsylvania:

         amendment no. 31 offered by mr. cramer of north dakota

       In title III, at the end of subtitle B add the following:

     SEC. 342. REPORT ON POSSIBLE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 
                   OPERATION ON SPECTRUM ALLOCATED FOR AVIATION 
                   USE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and after consultation with relevant 
     stakeholders, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     and the Federal Communications Commission, shall submit to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives a report--
       (1) on whether unmanned aircraft systems operations should 
     be permitted on spectrum designated for aviation use, on an 
     unlicensed, shared, or exclusive basis, for operations within 
     the UTM system or outside of such a system;
       (2) that addresses any technological, statutory, 
     regulatory, and operational barriers to the use of such 
     spectrum for unmanned aircraft systems operations; and
       (3) that, if it is determined that spectrum designated for 
     aviation use is not suitable for operations by unmanned 
     aircraft systems, includes recommendations of other

[[Page H3653]]

     spectrum frequencies that may be appropriate for such 
     operations.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Unmanned aircraft system.--The term ``unmanned aircraft 
     system'' means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements 
     (including communication links and the components that 
     control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the 
     pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the 
     national airspace system.
       (2) UTM.--The term ``UTM'' means an unmanned aircraft 
     traffic management system or service.


         amendment no. 32 offered by mr. lobiondo of new jersey

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. U.S. COUNTER-UAS SYSTEM REVIEW OF INTERAGENCY 
                   COORDINATION PROCESSES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after that date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, in consultation with government 
     agencies currently authorized to operate Counter-Unmanned 
     Aircraft System (C-UAS) systems within the United States 
     (including the territories and possessions of the United 
     States), shall initiate a review of the following:
       (1) The process the Administration is utilizing for 
     interagency coordination of C-UAS activity pursuant to a 
     relevant Federal statute authorizing such activity within the 
     United States (including the territories and possessions of 
     the United States).
       (2) The standards the Administration is utilizing for 
     operation of a C-UAS systems pursuant to a relevant Federal 
     statute authorizing such activity within the United States 
     (including the territories and possessions of the United 
     States), including whether the following criteria are being 
     taken into consideration in the development of the standards:
       (A) Safety of the national airspace.
       (B) Protecting individuals and property on the ground.
       (C) Non-interference with avionics of manned aircraft, and 
     unmanned aircraft, operating legally in the national 
     airspace.
       (D) Non-interference with air traffic control systems.
       (E) Consistent procedures in the operation of C-UAS systems 
     to the maximum extent practicable.
       (F) Adequate coordination procedures and protocols with the 
     Federal Aviation Administration during the operation of C-UAS 
     systems.
       (G) Adequate training for personnel operating C-UAS 
     systems.
       (H) Assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
     coordination and review processes to ensure national airspace 
     safety while minimizing bureaucracy.
       (I) Such other matters the Administrator deems necessary 
     for the safe and lawful operation of C-UAS systems.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date upon 
     which the review in subsection (a) is initiated, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 
     the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate, a report on the Administration's activities related 
     to C-UAS systems, including--
       (1) any coordination with Federal agencies and States, 
     subdivisions and States, political authorities of at least 2 
     States that operate C-UAS systems; and
       (2) an assessment of the standards being utilized for the 
     operation of a counter-UAS systems within the United States 
     (including the territories and possessions of the United 
     States).


          amendment no. 33 offered by mrs. davis of california

       Page 151, before line 17, insert the following (and 
     redesignate accordingly):
       (6) the Administrator should--
       (A) place particular priority in continuing measures, 
     including partnering with nongovernmental organizations and 
     State and local agencies, to educate the public about the 
     dangers to public safety of operating unmanned aircraft over 
     areas that have temporary flight restrictions in place, for 
     purposes such as wildfires, without appropriate approval or 
     authorization from the Forest Service; and
       (B) partner with State and local agencies to effectively 
     enforce relevant laws so that unmanned aircrafts do not 
     interfere with the efforts of emergency responders;


       amendment no. 34 offered by mr. sanford of south carolina

       Page 161, after line 11, insert the following:
       (d) Program Alignment.--The Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation within 90 days after enactment of this Act 
     that describes how each of the following programs will be 
     executed or implemented in a systematic and timely manner to 
     avoid duplication, leverage capabilities learned across 
     programs, and support the safe integration of UAS into the 
     national airspace:
       (1) Commercially-operated Low Altitude Authorization and 
     Notification Capability.
       (2) The Unmanned Aircraft System Integration Pilot Program.
       (3) The Unmanned Traffic Management Pilot Program.


       amendment no. 35 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island

       Page 181, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (2) Compensation (regarding rebooking options, refunds, 
     meals, and lodging) for flight diversions.


         amendment no. 36 offered by mr. cardenas of california

       Page 182, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. OVERBOOKING POLICIES OF AIR CARRIERS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
     study on the overbooking policies of air carriers and how the 
     policies impact the United States economy.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
     assess the effects of the overbooking policies on increasing 
     or decreasing the costs of passenger air transportation.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the study.


            amendment no. 37 offered by ms. meng of new york

       Page 182, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. TRAINING POLICIES REGARDING RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND 
                   RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report describing--
       (1) each air carrier's training policy for its employees 
     and contractors regarding racial, ethnic, and religious 
     nondiscrimination; and
       (2) how frequently an air carrier is required to train new 
     employees and contractors because of turnover in positions 
     that require such training.
       (b) Best Practices.--After the date the report is submitted 
     under subsection (1), the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     develop and disseminate to air carriers best practices 
     nevessary to improve the training policies described in 
     subsection (a), based on the findings of the report and in 
     consultation with--
       (1) passengers of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious 
     backgrounds;
       (2) national organizations that represent impacted 
     communities;
       (3) air carrier;
       (4) airport operators; and
       (5) contract service providers.


           amendment no. 38 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 4__. AVIATION CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND COMPLAINT RESOLUTION 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     review aviation consumer complaints received that allege a 
     violation of law and, as appropriate, pursue enforcement or 
     corrective actions that would be in the public interest.
       (b) Considerations.--In considering which cases to pursue 
     for enforcement or corrective action under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       (1) the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 
     (Public Law 99-435; 100 Stat. 1080);
       (2) unfair and deceptive practices by air carriers, foreign 
     air carriers, and ticket agents;
       (3) the terms and conditions agreed to between passengers 
     and air carriers, foreign air carriers, or ticket agents;
       (4) aviation consumer protection and tarmac delay 
     contingency planning requirements for both airports and 
     airlines; and
       (5) any other applicable law.
       (c) Aviation Consumer Advocate.--
       (1) In general.--Within the Aviation Consumer Protection 
     Division of the Department of Transportation, there shall be 
     established the position of Aviation Consumer Advocate.
       (2) Functions.--The Aviation Consumer Advocate shall--
       (A) assist consumers in resolving carrier service 
     complaints filed with the Aviation Consumer Protection 
     Division;
       (B) evaluate the resolution by the Department of 
     Transportation of carrier service complaints;
       (C) identify and recommend actions the Department can take 
     to improve the enforcement of aviation consumer protection 
     rules and resolution of carrier service complaints; and
       (D) identify and recommend regulations and policies that 
     can be amended to more effectively resolve carrier service 
     complaints.
       (d) Annual Reports.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Aviation Consumer Advocate, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives an annual report summarizing the 
     following:
       (1) The total number of annual complaints received by the 
     Secretary, including the number of complaints by the name of 
     each air carrier and foreign air carrier.
       (2) The total number of annual complaints by category of 
     complaint.
       (3) The number of complaints referred in the preceding year 
     for enforcement or correction action by the Secretary.
       (4) Any recommendations under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of 
     subsection (c)(2).

[[Page H3654]]

       (5) Such other data as the Aviation Consumer Advocate 
     considers appropriate.


        amendment no. 39 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island

       At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 44_. REGULATIONS ENSURING ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   WITH DISABILITIES IN AIR TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall--
       (1) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations 
     to ensure that individuals with disabilities who request 
     assistance while traveling in air transportation receive 
     dignified, timely, and effective assistance at airports and 
     on aircraft from trained personnel; and
       (2) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations 
     related to air carrier training programs for air carrier 
     personnel, including contractors, who provide physical 
     assistance to passengers with disabilities to ensure that 
     training under such programs--
       (A) occurs on an appropriate schedule for all new and 
     continuing personnel charged with providing physical 
     assistance; and
       (B) includes, as appropriate, instruction by personnel, 
     with hands-on training for employees who physically lift or 
     otherwise physically assist passengers with disabilities, 
     including the use of relevant equipment.
       (b) Types of Assistance.--The assistance referred to 
     subsection (a)(1) may include requests for assistance in 
     boarding or deplaning an aircraft, requests for assistance in 
     connecting between flights, and other similar or related 
     requests, as appropriate.
       (c) Air Carrier Defined.--In this section, the term ``air 
     carrier'' means an air carrier or foreign air carrier (as 
     those terms are defined in section 40102(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code).


         amendment no. 40 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona

       Page 190, after line 6, insert the following (and 
     redesignate accordingly):
       (b) Required Analysis on Communities.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a)(2)(E) the Comptroller General shall include, 
     for each option for further reform, an analysis of the impact 
     on local economies of communities with airports receiving 
     Essential Air Service funding, access to air travel for 
     residents of rural communities and the impact to local 
     businesses in such communities.


         amendment no. 43 offered by mr. espaillat of new york

       Page 266, line 25, strike the semicolon and insert ``, 
     including the fees charged to ground transportation providers 
     for airport access;''.


       amendment no. 45 offered by mr. sanford of south carolina

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON AIRPORT REVENUE DIVERSION.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall initiate a study of--
       (1) the legal and financial challenges related to repealing 
     the exception in section 47107(b)(2) of title 49, United 
     States Code, for those airports the Federal Aviation 
     Administration has identified are covered by the exception; 
     and
       (2) measures that may be taken to mitigate the impact of 
     repealing the exception.
       (b) Contents.--The study required under subsection (a) 
     shall address--
       (1) the level of revenue diversion at the airports covered 
     by the exception described in subsection (a)(1) and the uses 
     of the diverted revenue;
       (2) the terms of any bonds or financial covenants an 
     airport owner has issued relying on diverted airport revenue;
       (3) applicable local laws or ordinances requiring use of 
     airport revenue for non-airport purposes;
       (4) whether repealing the exception would improve the long-
     term financial performance of impacted airports; and
       (5) any other practical implications of repealing the 
     exception for airports or the national aviation system.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.


        amendment no. 48 offered by mr. fleischmann of tennessee

       At the end of title V add the following:

     SEC. __. GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIALS.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     to the extent practicable, shall encourage the use of 
     durable, resilient, and sustainable materials and practices, 
     including the use of geosynthetic materials and other 
     innovative technologies, in carrying out the activities of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration.


            amendment no. 50 offered by ms. meng of new york

       Add at the end of title V the following:

     SEC. ___. RULE FOR ANIMALS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall issue a rule to require each primary 
     airport (as defined in section 47102 of title 49, United 
     States Code) to provide a designated area for animals, 
     traveling with their owners, to relieve themselves.


          amendment no. 51 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan

       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. ___. ENHANCED AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a 
     pilot program to provide air traffic control services on a 
     preferential basis to aircraft equipped with certain NextGen 
     avionics that--
       (1) lasts at least 2 years; and
       (2) operates in at 3 least suitable airports.
       (b) Duration of Daily Service.--The air traffic control 
     services provided under the pilot program established under 
     subsection (a) shall occur for at least 3 consecutive hours 
     between 0600 and 2200 local time during each day of the pilot 
     program.
       (c) Airport Selection.--The Administrator shall designate 
     airports for participation in the pilot program after 
     consultation with aircraft operators, manufacturers, and 
     airport sponsors.
       (d) Definitions.--
       (1) Certain nextgen avionics.--The term ``certain NextGen 
     avionics'' means those avionics and related software 
     designated by the Administrator after consultations with 
     aircraft operators and manufacturers.
       (2) Preferential basis.--The term ``preferential basis'' 
     means--
       (A) prioritizing aircraft equipped with certain NextGen 
     avionics during a Ground Delay Program by assigning them 
     fewer minutes of delay relative to other aircraft; and
       (B) sequencing aircraft equipped with certain NextGen 
     avionics ahead of other aircraft in the Traffic Flow 
     Management System to the maximum extent consistent with 
     safety.
       (e) Sunset.--The pilot program established under subsection 
     (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2023.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which 
     the pilot program terminates, the Administrator shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the pilot program.


          amendment no. 52 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan

       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. NEXTGEN DELIVERY STUDY.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of 
     this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall initiate a study of the potential 
     impacts of a significantly delayed, significantly diminished, 
     or completely failed delivery of the Next Generation Air 
     Transportation System modernization initiative by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, including impacts to the air traffic 
     control system and the national airspace system as a whole.
       (b) Scope of Study.--In carrying out the study under 
     subsection (a), the Inspector General shall assess the 
     Administration's performance related to the Next Generation 
     Air Transportation System modernization initiative, 
     including--
       (1) the potential impacts on the operational efficiency of 
     our aviation system;
       (2) an analysis of potential economic losses and stranded 
     investments directly related to NextGen;
       (3) an analysis of the potential impacts to our 
     international competitiveness in aviation innovation;
       (4) an analysis of the main differences that would be seen 
     in our air traffic control system;
       (5) the potential impacts on the flying public, including 
     potential impacts to flight times, fares, and delays in the 
     air and on the ground;
       (6) the effects on supply chains reliant on air 
     transportation of cargo;
       (7) the potential impacts on the long-term benefits 
     promised by NextGen;
       (8) an analysis of the potential impacts on aircraft noise 
     and flight paths;
       (9) the potential changes in separation standards, fuel 
     consumption, flight paths, block times, and landing 
     procedures or lack thereof;
       (10) the potential impacts on aircraft taxi times and 
     aircraft emissions or lack thereof;
       (11) a determination of the total potential costs and 
     logistical challenges of the failure of NextGen, including a 
     comparison of the potential loss of the return on public and 
     private sector investment related to NextGen, as compared to 
     other available investment alternatives, between December 12, 
     2003 and the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (12) other matters arising in the course of the study.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     initiation of the study under subsection (a), the Inspector 
     General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the results of the study.


          amendment no. 54 offered by ms. degette of colorado

       At the end of title V, add the following new section:

     SEC. 543. LIMITED REGULATION OF NON-FEDERALLY SPONSORED 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Transportation may not directly or indirectly 
     regulate--
       (1) the acquisition, use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or 
     disposal of land by an airport owner or operator;

[[Page H3655]]

       (2) any non-Federal facility upon such land; or
       (3) any portion of such land or facility.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     regulation--
       (1) ensuring--
       (A) the safe and efficient operation of aircraft and 
     airports, including the safety of people and property on the 
     ground;
       (B) that an airport owner or operator receives not less 
     than fair market value for the lease, use, encumbrance, 
     transfer, or disposal of land, any facilities on such land, 
     or any portion of such land or facilities; or
       (C) that the airport pays not more than fair market value 
     for the acquisition of land or facilities on such land; or
       (2) imposed with respect to--
       (A) any land or a facility acquired or modified using--
       (i) Federal financial assistance, including Federal grants; 
     or
       (ii) passenger facility charge revenues collected under 
     section 40117 of title 49, United States Code; or
       (B) any land conveyed to the airport, including its 
     predecessors or successors, by the United States or any 
     agency thereof.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the applicability of section 47107(b) or 
     47133 of title 49, United States Code, to revenues generated 
     by the use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or disposal of land 
     as described in subsection (a), facilities upon such land, or 
     any portion of such land or facilities.


            amendment no. 55 offered by mr. banks of indiana

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. NATIONAL AIRMAIL MUSEUM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1930, commercial airmail carriers began operations 
     at Smith Field in Fort Wayne, Indiana;
       (2) the United States lacks a national museum dedicated to 
     airmail; and
       (3) the airmail hangar at Smith Field in Fort Wayne, 
     Indiana--
       (A) will educate the public on the role of airmail in 
     aviation history; and
       (B) honor the role of the hangar in the history of the 
     Nation's airmail service.
       (b) Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The airmail museum located at the Smith 
     Field in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is designated as the ``National 
     Airmail Museum''.
       (2) Effect of designation.--The national museum designated 
     by this section is not a unit of the National Park System and 
     the designation of the National Airmail Museum shall not 
     require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any 
     purpose related to that national memorial.


           amendment no. 56 offered by ms. sinema of arizona

       At the end of title V, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5__. REVIEW OF APPROVAL PROCESS FOR USE OF LARGE AIR 
                   TANKERS AND VERY LARGE AIR TANKERS FOR WILDLAND 
                   FIREFIGHTING.

       (a) Review and Improvement of Current Approval Process.--
     The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall conduct a review of its process to approve the use of 
     large air tankers and very large air tankers for wildland 
     firefighting for the purpose of--
       (1) determining the current effectiveness, safety, and 
     consistency of the approval process;
       (2) developing recommendations for improving the 
     effectiveness, safety, and consistency of the approval 
     process; and
       (3) assisting in developing standardized next-generation 
     requirements for air tankers used for firefighting.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to Congress a 
     report describing the outcome of the review conducted under 
     subsection (a).


            amendment no. 57 offered by mr. biggs of arizona

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. REPORT ON BAGGAGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall--
       (1) study and publicize for comment a cost-benefit analysis 
     to air carriers and consumers of changing the baggage 
     reporting requirements of section 234.6 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, before the implementation of such 
     requirements; and
       (2) submit a report on the findings of the cost-benefit 
     analysis to the appropriate committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.


          amendment no. 58 offered by ms. esty of connecticut

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. SUPPORTING WOMEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE AVIATION 
                   FIELD.

       (a) Advisory Board.--To encourage women and girls to enter 
     the field of aviation, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall create and facilitate the Women 
     in Aviation Advisory Board (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Board''), with the objective of promoting organizations and 
     programs that are providing education, training, mentorship, 
     outreach, and recruitment of women into the aviation 
     industry.
       (b) Composition.--The Board shall consist of members whose 
     diverse background and expertise allows them to contribute 
     balanced points of view and ideas regarding the strategies 
     and objectives set forth in subsection (f).
       (c) Selection.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall appoint 
     members of the Board, including representatives from the 
     following:
       (1) Major airlines and aerospace companies.
       (2) Nonprofit organizations within the aviation industry.
       (3) Aviation business associations.
       (4) Engineering business associations.
       (5) United States Air Force Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol.
       (6) Institutions of higher education and aviation trade 
     schools.
       (d) Period of Appointment.--Members shall be appointed to 
     the Board for the duration of the existence of the Board.
       (e) Compensation.--Board members shall serve without 
     compensation.
       (f) Duties.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall present a 
     comprehensive plan for strategies the Administration can 
     take, which include the following objectives:
       (1) Identifying industry trends that directly or indirectly 
     encourage or discourage women from pursuing careers in 
     aviation.
       (2) Coordinating the efforts of airline companies, 
     nonprofit organizations, and aviation and engineering 
     associations to facilitate support for women pursuing careers 
     in aviation.
       (3) Creating opportunities to expand existing scholarship 
     opportunities for women in the aviation industry.
       (4) Enhancing aviation training, mentorship, education, and 
     outreach programs that are exclusive to women.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit a report 
     outlining the comprehensive plan for strategies pursuant to 
     subsection (f) to--
       (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (C) the Administrator.
       (2) Availability online.--The Administrator shall make the 
     report publicly available online and in print.
       (h) Sunset.--The Board shall terminate upon the submittal 
     of the report pursuant to subsection (g).


           amendment no. 59 offered by mr. graves of missouri

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. GAO STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE 
                   RIGHT OF AERONAUTICAL SERVICES TO AN AIRPORT 
                   SPONSOR.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the General 
     Accountability Office shall conduct a study to examine the 
     cases in which an airport sponsor exercised an exclusive 
     right (commonly known as a ``proprietary exclusive right''), 
     as described in the Federal Aviation Advisory Circular 150/
     1590-6 published on January 4, 2007.
       (b) Report.--At the end of the 2-year period under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall submit the findings 
     of such report to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.


          amendment no. 61 offered by mr. kilmer of washington

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. EVALUATION OF AIRPORT MASTER PLANS.

       Section 47106 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Evaluation of Airport Master Plans.--When evaluating 
     the master plan of an airport for purposes of this 
     subchapter, the Secretary shall take into account--
       ``(1) the role the airport plays with respect to medical 
     emergencies and evacuations; and
       ``(2) the role the airport plays in emergency or disaster 
     preparedness in the community served by the airport.''.


         amendment no. 62 offered by mr. panetta of california

       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. STUDY REGARDING DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall evaluate alternative metrics to the 
     current average day night level standard, such as the use of 
     actual noise sampling and other methods, to address community 
     airplane noise concerns.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study, including a 
     description of the proposed structure of a recommended pilot 
     program.


            amendment no. 64 offered by mr. hill of arkansas

       At the end of title V (page 267, after line 10), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 543. REPORT ON STATUS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAA AND 
                   LITTLE ROCK PORT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Report Requirement.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives

[[Page H3656]]

     and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate a report on the agreement between the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the Little Rock Port Authority to 
     relocate the Little Rock, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional 
     Range with Collocated Tactical Air Control and Navigation 
     (LIT VORTAC).
       (b) Report Contents.--The report required under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) The status of the efforts by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to relocate the LIT VORTAC.
       (2) The long-term and short-term budget projections for the 
     relocation project.
       (3) A description of and timeline for each phase of the 
     relocation project.
       (4) A description of and explanation for the required 
     location radius.
       (5) A description of work completed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration as of the date of the report.


           amendment no. 65 offered by mrs. lowey of new york

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON ALLERGIC REACTIONS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall--
       (1) study the prevalence of allergic reactions on board 
     flights, whether airlines universally report reactions to the 
     Federal Aviation Administration, and the frequency of first 
     aid inventory checks to ensure medicine to prevent 
     anaphylactic shock is in an aircraft; and
       (2) submit a report to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation, Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions, and Appropriations of the Senate.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en 
bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and the 
minority. These Members put forward thoughtful amendments, and I am 
pleased to be able to support moving them en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis.)
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee 
for including amendment No. 111 in this en bloc.
  After the tragic fires that we have seen in California, we must do 
everything possibly to protect our communities. In San Diego, 
helicopters and air tankers had to be grounded during fire fights after 
recreational drones were spotted in the area. These drones can pose a 
risk to aircraft and emergency personnel flying overhead. That is why 
my amendment would protect emergency response efforts from 
interruptions by drones and direct the FAA to work with local agencies 
to inform the public about this issue.
  I want to thank, again, the committee for their tireless work on this 
bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the Northern Plains Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems Test Site in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is doing extensive work 
with private industry stakeholders in advancing this very important 
emerging industry. However, the growth of the UAS industry is reliant 
on receiving dedicated spectrum allocation to ensure the connection for 
beyond visual line of sight operations.
  My amendment simply directs the FAA, the NTIA, and the FCC to submit 
to Congress a report on whether UAS operations of all sizes, at all 
altitudes, should be permitted to operate on spectrum that is 
designated for aviation use. It may also include recommendations of 
other licensed spectrum frequencies, such as LTE, that may be 
appropriate for flying UAS.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment to advance the UAS 
industry, and I look forward to working with stakeholders and Members 
of the Senate to take it across the finish line.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the en bloc amendment, 
which includes my amendment to H.R. 4. I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their work on this important bill, as well as the inclusion 
of a section that would require airlines to provide consumers with a 
one-page description of their rights as passengers.
  My amendment will amend this section to ensure that passengers are 
notified of what compensation airlines provide--including rebooking 
options, refunds, meals, and lodging--if a passenger's flight is 
diverted.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
including this and for their efforts, and urge adoption of this very 
pro-consumer amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for taking our amendment and including it in the en bloc amendment. It 
is a GAO study of revenue diversion by airports.
  I think it is important for three different reasons:
  One, it ties to the very heart of equity or fairness, the idea of all 
entities under law being treated equally. What we have now is a 35-year 
tradition wherein 20 airports have been exempted in a way that the 
other 380 primary airports in this country are not.
  Two, this is about recognizing that you can't use that which you 
divert. In 2015 alone, more than $1 billion was diverted from airport 
operations to other, and if we are going to say we need more money, 
let's use first some money we have, which would bring me to my final 
point: You should always spend what you have before you go asking for 
more. I think this is particularly important when you talk about $130 
billion of need within the airport system; that you simply spend within 
the system first before you go to the taxpayer asking for yet more.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc package, which 
includes my amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act relating to air 
passengers with disabilities. I also want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for including an air passengers with disabilities bill 
of rights in the manager's amendment.
  The Air Carrier Access Act was enacted in 1986 to prohibit 
discrimination based on disability in air travel. Despite progress, 
travelers with disabilities still encounter significant barriers. My 
amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to review and, if 
necessary, revise regulations issued under the act. In particular, it 
focuses on providing timelier and more effective assistance to people 
with disabilities, including by improving hands-on training for airline 
personnel.
  Inadequate assistance for people with disabilities can lead to 
unacceptable delays, missed flights, and even passenger injuries. We 
can and must do better. Mr. Chairman, I have traveled all over the 
world, and I have dealt with those airlines who do things the right way 
and treat people with disabilities with respect and have good processes 
in place and other airlines that need more improvement and need to work 
harder at this.
  These amendments and this bill will help us to get there. I thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster 
and my colleagues for their work on this underlying legislation.
  My amendment is simple. It would designate the hangar at Smith 
Airfield in Ft. Wayne, in my district, as the National Airmail Museum. 
Currently, there is no such museum with this particular designation. I 
want to also make clear that my amendment prohibits any Federal funding 
to support this important initiative for the community. It is a zero-
cost amendment.
  The significance of hangar number 2, which is the only example of 
Clark W. Smith's patented carousel design, makes it a fine fit for this 
designation. In 1911, the United States Postal Service began airmail 
delivery, and in 1930,

[[Page H3657]]

commercial airmail service came to Smith Airfield.
  Mr. Chairman, this recognition would be a great addition to my 
community and a vital tool to educate the American people on the 
significant role airmail played in the evolution of aviation. 
Furthermore, such recognition would propel the ongoing initiative to 
preserve and share the history of airmail.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
en bloc amendment and support the preservation of airmail history.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for their support of my 
commonsense, bipartisan amendment that strengthens our commitment to 
rural America.

  The Essential Air Service is a critical link for residents and 
businesses in small and rural communities by linking service to hub 
airports in 36 States. EAS serves as an important economic tool in 
local communities.
  Page and Show Low, Arizona, in my district, are two communities that 
benefit from EAS, which allows businesses there to access larger 
markets and compete on a level playing field. My amendment simply 
requires the comptroller general to analyze the impact any proposed 
reforms to EAS it reports to Congress would have on the local 
communities that depend on the program.
  At a time when rural America is still recovering from economic 
recession, we should be working together to revitalize communities and 
create jobs. EAS is a vital resource in many of these communities 
across America, and we must continue to protect it. I thank Congressman 
 Don Young for cosponsoring this amendment and being a stalwart 
champion for EAS.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for including it in their en bloc 
package.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member DeFazio and 
Chairman Shuster. Our families have some history, but I also appreciate 
your friendship and leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4. My 
amendment will ensure that the FAA studies alternative ways to measure 
sound over a period of time, such as actual noise sampling, to properly 
capture the experience of those on the ground.
  I offer this amendment for my constituents in Carmel Valley to 
Capitola to Santa Cruz. Those are people who lived in communities that 
were once quiet until the FAA NextGen changed the routes over their 
houses back in 2015. Their health, their sleep, their pets, their well-
being were all affected by the sound of jet engines, air brakes, and 
landing gear.
  I appreciate the work that FAA has done to get us close to quieter 
skies in my community, as well as the Select Committee on these issues 
and their work with the FAA. However, like many Members who have 
districts who have faced these types of airplane noise concerns, I 
believe that the existing day-night level 65-decibel standard is out of 
date, out of touch, and inadequate to measure the amount of sound 
pollution impacting our communities.
  My amendment would ensure not just alternative ways, but proper ways 
to study noise sampling. I appreciate the committee for including this 
amendment en bloc.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and simply 
requires the Department of Transportation to provide a cost-benefit 
analysis to Congress before moving forward with changes to what is 
commonly referred to as the mishandled baggage reporting rule. If DOT 
wants to alter a sensible reporting requirement that has been in place 
for decades, it should, at the very least, be asked to justify it with 
a cost-benefit analysis.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of this En Bloc 
amendment package, which contains two of my amendments to the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
  It is no secret our Air Traffic Control system is antiquated. It 
relies on old technology and old techniques. It is a safe system, but 
it is ineffective and could be significantly improved.
  Despite billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent over the past 
30 years to make it better, the system still largely relies on World 
War II era radar technology.
  The Government Accountability Office and the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General have both said the FAA lags massively 
behind in bringing Air Traffic Control into the 21st Century. NextGen--
the common name for these modernization efforts--has cost well over 
seven billion dollars already with no implementation date--still.
  We all know the promise that Air Traffic Control modernization holds, 
but we also know NextGen has taken too long and cost too much money to 
fully implement.
  My amendments today will help expedite full NextGen deployment and 
get taxpayers the return on investment they deserve and expect.
  My first amendment to H.R. 4 would establish a pilot program to 
demonstrate the full promise of NextGen technologies. This pilot 
program could also show policy makers and the Federal Aviation 
Administration where we still have room for improvement in NextGen.
  There are some airports and some planes that have begun to use the 
newest technologies. After this many years and this many dollars spent, 
it certainly makes sense that would be the case.
  My amendment today would create a limited pilot program, with a 
sunset date and a reporting requirement, for planes and airports with 
the latest NextGen technologies.
  This pilot program would allow for limited enhanced access for planes 
with the latest technology, at a limited number of airports.
  The parameters for the pilot program would be developed by the 
Federal Aviation Administration after consultations with aircraft 
operators, manufacturers, and airport sponsors.
  Here's what we can find out with such a program: How good can a fully 
implemented NextGen be? How will pilots and airports utilize the 
system? Where are areas that need more attention? How much more 
investment is necessary, and what will be the return on that 
investment?
  These are all questions that make sense to ask, and have been asked. 
This amendment and this pilot program takes those questions and creates 
an opportunity that will show policy makers and the public real-world 
and tangible--and measurable--results.
  To recap, my first amendment creates a limited pilot program to 
demonstrate what a fully implemented NextGen system could look like. It 
has an end date, so it's not an open-ended program. It requires the FAA 
to report to Congress once the pilot program is ended. After reviewing 
the results, policy makers and the FAA would have greater knowledge 
about how best to finish NextGen implementation, and how to run a fully 
modernized Air Traffic Control system.
  My second amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, paired 
with the first one, will further ensure Air Traffic Control 
modernization stays on track.
  Today's Manager's Amendment from Chairman Shuster requires the FAA to 
tell Congress and the public how much time, effort, and money has gone 
in to NextGen to date, and what the returns on that investment are so 
far. It also requires the DOT IG to examine that report from the FAA 
for accuracy and completeness.
  My second amendment today builds upon these accountability measures 
put forward by Chairman Shuster.
  My amendment requires the Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation to study the potential impacts of a significantly 
delayed, significantly diminished, or completely failed delivery of the 
NextGen modernization initiative. My amendment is forward looking, and 
helps hold the FAA accountable to taxpayers.
  This examination by the IG would ask some very straightforward but 
very important questions.
  Questions like what are the potential impacts on the operational 
efficiency of our aviation system without NextGen; how would a failed 
NextGen delivery impact our international competiveness; what would be 
the impact on the flying public; what would be the overall economic 
impact; how would it effect stakeholder use of the system; and more. 
These are all questions that we need answers for.
  By having this information, Congress and the American people will 
know how much is at stake and where we need to make adjustments. 
NextGen is an opportunity, but if that

[[Page H3658]]

opportunity isn't fully realized, investments to date will be for 
naught, and all the benefits of a fully modernized Air Traffic Control 
system will not be realized. Failure is not an option, and Congress 
needs to do everything in our power to keep the FAA on track.
  In sum, my amendment makes the DOT IG do a deep dive into the worst 
case scenarios for NextGen implementation. By having these answers, 
Congress and the taxpayers will have a full picture of the need to 
expedite Air Traffic Control modernization, and what more needs to be 
done to get our aviation system in to the 21st Century.
  I am pleased both of my amendments are included in the En Bloc 
package, because I believe they will expedite NextGen deployment and 
will help modernize our Air Traffic Control systems.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


          Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN FLIGHTS BY STAGE 2 
                   AIRPLANES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 47534 of title 49, 
     United States Code, not late than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall initiate a pilot program to 
     permit the operator of a Stage 2 airplane to operate that 
     airplane in revenue and nonrevenue service into medium hub 
     airports or nonhub airports if--
       (1) the airport--
       (A) is certified under part 139 of 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations;
       (B) has a runway that--
       (i) is longer than 8,000 feet and not less than 200 feet 
     wide; and
       (ii) is load bearing with a pavement classification number 
     of not less than 38;
       (C) has a maintenance facility with a maintenance 
     certificate issued under part 145 of such title; and
       (D) certifies annually to the Administrator that the 
     airport intends to continue participating in the pilot 
     program;
       (2) the operator of the Stage 2 airplane operates not more 
     than 10 flights per month using that airplane; and
       (3) revenue flights will be limited to flights transporting 
     specific and necessary equipment to maintain or improve the 
     vital industry of small rural communities.
       (b) Termination.--The regulations required by subsection 
     (a) shall terminate on the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is 10 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Act; or
       (2) the date on which the Administrator determines that no 
     Stage 2 airplane remain in service.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Medium hub airport; nonhub aiport.--The terms ``medium 
     hub airport'' and ``nonhub airport'' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 40102 of the title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Stage 2 airplane.--The term ``Stage 2 airplane'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 91.851 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. 
If adopted, it would require the administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to initiate a 10-year pilot program to permit operators 
of State 2 airplanes to conduct operations in medium-hub or non-hub 
airports.
  This pilot program would additionally require that participating 
airports certify each year that they wish to remain in the program. The 
whole purpose of my amendment is to allow rural airports that are 
located outside of more heavily populated areas to have the ability to 
conduct commercial and noncommercial activities that currently are not 
allowed.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a pro-business and commonsense amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it and the 
passage of Chairman Shuster's underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time.
  We have already heard a lot today about noise complaints, and State 2 
are very noisy aircraft. They were phased out of revenue service about 
15 years ago. They are noisy. They consume more fuel. And I am not 
quite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what 
this pilot program would look like. So I have a number of concerns 
about the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
reclaim my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Higgins for yielding.
  I believe this amendment that initiates a pilot program allows small 
numbers of these aircraft to land in the United States for maintenance 
services. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I want 
to stress the next point, that no community would have these older 
aircraft land at their airports unless they certify annually that they 
are willing to accept them.
  I think the gentleman is trying to create jobs in a district, in a 
rural area, that the noise will not affect and that will put 
hardworking Louisianans to work fixing these planes that still operate 
around the Caribbean.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this 
amendment, and I respect my colleague's concerns. I have communicated 
thoroughly with my constituents in rural areas that would benefit from 
this amendment and allow the further use of rural airports without 
interfering with neighborhoods. It has broad support, my friend, across 
the communities that I represent, and I urge my colleague to reconsider 
and to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1430


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 42.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 214, strike lines 11 through 15.
       Page 215, beginning on line 13, strike ``Pursuant to 
     section 828 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 
     (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), not'' and insert ``Not''.
       Page 216, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) ICAO technical instructions.--The term ``ICAO Technical 
     Instructions'' means the International Civil Aviation 
     Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of 
     Dangerous Goods by Air (as amended, including any amendments 
     adopted after the date of enactment of this Act).
       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP.

       Section 828 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 
     (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), and the item relating to such section 
     in the table of contents of such Act, is repealed.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, years ago, people used to refer to the 
tombstone mentality at the FAA, with a lack of oversight where fatal 
accidents happened, loss of rudder control and other things like that 
that could have been prevented with proper maintenance. We have moved 
beyond that point to a much more engaged and active FAA, except 
Congress has imposed a tombstone mentality on the FAA.
  At the behest of Chinese battery manufacturers and large firms in the

[[Page H3659]]

U.S. who utilize those batteries, an amendment was placed into a 
previous bill that prohibits the FAA from exercising its judgment about 
the safety of the carriage of lithium batteries on airplanes. Instead, 
we are bound to an international convention, the ICAO, which is very 
responsive to third-world countries and China and others in terms of 
seeking lowest common denominator regulation of anything that they can.
  Normally, we lead the world. Normally, we would say: No, get this 
stuff off aircraft. We have lost two 747s--two 747s. They were cargo 
aircraft. They went down because of lithium batteries. It only takes a 
very few lithium batteries.
  Do we have the lithium battery picture?
  This is packaging of lithium batteries. This is what happens with 
those lithium batteries if just one overheats and starts a spontaneous 
reaction--again, catastrophic to the aircraft.
  Now we are temporarily under an ICAO rule that says that they should 
not be carried in passenger aircraft, but they are still being 
regularly carried in the holds of cargo aircraft.
  Now, we have oceans. We have freighters. They have containers. You 
could plan ahead.
  Let's say 2 months from now we are going to say these things don't go 
in the air anymore because, okay, yeah, you are right; there are only a 
couple of pilots who are going to lose their lives. It kind of concerns 
me. Well, what happens if the 747 comes down in a populated area? Oops, 
a lot more people lose their lives.
  So you can say 2 months from now they are not going to be on aircraft 
anymore and the industry can set up a new supply chain of putting these 
things in containers and shipping them across the ocean in a way that 
will not endanger people on the ground and, in all probability, will 
not lead to fatalities if there were an uncontained spontaneous 
ignition of these batteries.
  Even worse, this administration has designated that the--did you ever 
hear of this?--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
PHMSA, which is a little tiny, pretty dysfunctional agency, will take 
over the authority for the regulation and the negotiation of the 
regulation of lithium batteries from the FAA.
  What does PHMSA, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, know about aviation? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
  So I guess, again, we are seeing the clout of the manufacturers and 
the Chinese battery manufacturers. Theoretically, they are safer now 
because they can only be charged to 30 percent, but often the Chinese 
just kind of forget to do it that way and put them on the planes 
anyway.
  So this is an accident waiting to happen. It is an imposition of a 
tombstone mentality on the FAA by Congress. It says, until there is 
another proven crash due to lithium batteries, we can't regulate.
  Come on. Really? Another proven crash, we can't regulate?
  Let's give the FAA the authority to regulate these batteries. They 
could probably develop containers, maybe, that they could go in and 
still be on aircraft, but there are other ways of moving these 
batteries in world commerce.
  So I would urge adoption of my amendment and the repeal of the 
tombstone mentality mandate on the FAA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The amendment 
would repeal existing law that has been in place since 2012. The law 
generally prevents DOT from adopting lithium battery regulations that 
are not harmonized with international standards.
  Existing law represents a balanced approach that allows DOT to issue 
regulations that exceed international requirements if the Secretary has 
credible evidence that lithium batteries would substantially contribute 
to onboard fires.
  Billions of lithium batteries and lithium-battery containing products 
are shipped safely by air every year. Shipments by air into the U.S. in 
2017 were valued at approximately $120 billion, which also means there 
are thousands of jobs attached to these.
  Aviation is a global industry, and it is very important there not be 
a patchwork of regulations. The international body studying the global 
standards for lithium battery transport requirements has been very 
active on the issue, and the United States has been centrally involved. 
In reality, the international effort on lithium batteries has been 
ahead of the DOT in terms of implementing requirements.
  Additionally, H.R. 4 continues to focus on safely transporting the 
products that almost all Americans rely on. It assures expert 
participation in all panels and working groups of international test or 
standard-setting organizations in which the United States participates. 
It avoids creating a burdensome patchwork of regulations, provides the 
Secretary of Transportation with the authority to deal with this, and 
creates a Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee to ensure that 
the best and safest policy positions are developed and synchronized in 
the U.S.
  This amendment also would put exclusive powers to represent the 
United States internationally on transport issues in the hands of the 
FAA, despite hazardous materials transportation affecting all modes of 
transportation.

  Currently, the Secretary of Transportation is statutorily directed to 
represent the United States in international forums for transporting 
hazardous materials in international commerce. It is the Secretary's 
discretion to delegate this authority to her or his choice of agencies. 
Discretion appropriately rests with the Secretary.
  Experts agree that uniform international transportation regulation is 
a key to safety, so I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this doesn't tell the FAA nor mandate the FAA to 
regulate lithium batteries. It would allow the status quo, which means 
the FAA would have the authority to determine whether they represent an 
inordinate risk and there should be strictures put upon their 
transport, whether it is containers or other strictures, as opposed to 
following the lowest common denominator international organization.
  You know, airplane manufacturers see the risk. According to the 
International Coordination Council for Aerospace Industries 
Association, which includes Boeing and Airbus, they say: ``Existing 
cargo compartment fire protection systems . . . are unable to suppress 
or extinguish a fire involving significant quantities of lithium 
batteries . . . . Therefore, continuing to allow the carriage of 
lithium batteries within today's transport category aircraft cargo 
compartments is an unacceptable risk to the air transport industry.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's passion on 
this issue.
  I would, again, say, having a system that is harmonized throughout 
the world is critical. ICAO has already said in their standard that 
they recommend that we don't carry them on passenger aircraft, so our 
industry in America has done that.
  Further, the companies that ship cargo--UPS, FedEx--are working, and 
I have seen what they have done to make sure that the crews of cargo 
planes are protected. Again, the private industry understands this, and 
they are moving forward to develop these systems that contain it or 
suppression systems.
  So, again, I believe that the best way forward is to, again, 
harmonize with the rest of the world and continue to ship billions of 
dollars of these batteries safely every year. Again, I urge my 
colleagues to not support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H3660]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 44 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, to affirm what the chairman already knows, I 
have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. ACCESS OF AIR CARRIERS TO INFORMATION ABOUT 
                   APPLICANTS TO BE PILOTS FROM NATIONAL DRIVER 
                   REGISTER.

       Section 30305(b)(8) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(8)(A) An individual who is seeking employment by an air 
     carrier as a pilot may request the chief driver licensing 
     official of a State to provide information about the 
     individual under subsection (a) of this section to the 
     prospective employer of the individual, the authorized agent 
     of the prospective employer, or the Secretary of 
     Transportation.
       ``(B) An air carrier that is the prospective employer of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A), or an authorized 
     agent of such an air carrier, may request and receive 
     information about that individual from the National Driver 
     Register through an organization approved by the Secretary 
     for purposes of requesting, receiving, and transmitting such 
     information directly to the prospective employer of such an 
     individual or the authorized agent of the prospective 
     employer.
       ``(C) Information may not be obtained from the National 
     Driver Register under this paragraph if the information was 
     entered in the Register more than 5 years before the request 
     unless the information is about a revocation or suspension 
     still in effect on the date of the request.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


         Modification to Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
46 printed in part A of House Report 115-650 be modified by the form I 
have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 46 printed in part A of House Report 
115-650 offered by Mr. Cohen:

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. ACCESS OF AIR CARRIERS TO INFORMATION ABOUT 
                   APPLICANTS TO BE PILOTS FROM NATIONAL DRIVER 
                   REGISTER.

       Section 30305(b)(8) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(8)(A) An individual who is seeking employment by an air 
     carrier as a pilot may request the chief driver licensing 
     official of a State to provide information about the 
     individual under subsection (a) of this section to the 
     prospective employer of the individual, the authorized agent 
     of the prospective employer, or the Secretary of 
     Transportation.
       ``(B) An air carrier that is the prospective employer of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A), or an authorized 
     agent of such an air carrier, may request and receive 
     information about that individual from the National Driver 
     Register through an organization approved by the Secretary 
     for purposes of requesting, receiving, and transmitting such 
     information directly to the prospective employer of such an 
     individual or the authorized agent of the prospective 
     employer. A request for information shall be made in 
     accordance with the requirements of section 44703(h)(2).
       ``(C) Information may not be obtained from the National 
     Driver Register under this paragraph if the information was 
     entered in the Register more than 5 years before the request 
     unless the information is about a revocation or suspension 
     still in effect on the date of the request.''.

  Mr. COHEN (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that we not listen to any more of the modification but continue on with 
debate.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan, 
bicameral amendment, offered with my colleague on the Aviation 
Subcommittee, Mr. Woodall, and spearheaded in the Senate by former 
military pilot, mother, and great Member, Senator Tammy Duckworth of 
Illinois, and Senator Perdue.
  This amendment is common sense and ensures the safety of the flying 
public. Our bipartisan amendment streamlines an onerous process that 
has led to unintended burdens and delays on the State Department of 
Motor Vehicles across the country and delays in getting prospective 
pilots eligible for employment.
  To be clear, this amendment does nothing to remove protections to 
pilots and their privacy already enshrined in Federal law.
  In 1996, Congress passed the Pilot Records Improvement Act, which 
mandated the airlines obtain driving records of all prospective pilot 
employees from the National Driver Registry. An unintended consequence 
came about requiring only the chief State licensing official could 
approve such request. This has caused delays at DMVs, and currently, 
most employees have to request these records from Missouri, since they 
are the sole State still willing to access the National Driver Registry 
for requests from all parties. That is not what was intended, and it 
requires a simple and technical fix that this amendment does bring 
about.
  That 1996 law also clearly and strictly stipulated the written 
consent that airlines require from pilots before obtaining their 
records and spells out strict guidelines on the privacy and use of that 
information. They cannot sell that information.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and ask that it be voted on and 
approved, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment.
  This amendment would streamline the process for airlines to obtain 
information from the National Driver Registry for airline pilots 
seeking employment.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take my remaining time 
to thank Mr. Shuster for his work on this bill, and Mr. DeFazio for his 
work, too. They did bring about an excellent bill that I am proud to 
support.
  I have been proud to be a member of the committee with Mr. Shuster as 
the chair. He has done an outstanding job and done his father's memory 
as a great chairman even greater honor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1445


                Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
rise to speak in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title V the following:

     SEC. 543. PROHIBITION REGARDING WEAPONS.

       (a) In General.--Unless authorized by the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, a person may not operate 
     an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system that is 
     equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon.
       (b) Dangerous Weapon Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``dangerous weapon'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 930(g)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Penalty.--A person who violates this section is liable 
     to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not 
     more than $25,000 for each violation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman

[[Page H3661]]

from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, today, I offer an amendment to prevent a 
person from operating an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft 
system in the national airspace if that aircraft is equipped or armed 
with a dangerous weapon, unless that equipment is authorized by the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I have introduced 
this important language as the No Armed Drones Act since the 112th 
Congress.
  In 2015, an 18-year-old in Connecticut built a multirotor drone 
mounted with a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun capable of firing live 
ammunition while flying. This individual demonstrated how easy it was 
for a private citizen to create and operate an armed drone in his 
YouTube video entitled ``Flying Gun.''
  Police did not arrest this person, saying that no violation of law 
had occurred. According to the then-chief of police in Clinton, 
Connecticut, where the drone video was made, this appeared to be a case 
of technology surpassing current legislation.
  In response to this and other drone incidents, government agencies 
are developing counter-drone technology to redirect rogue drones. 
Police say their greatest fear, with the increase in the use of 
recreational drones, is their weaponization. In addition, North Dakota 
has allowed law enforcement to fly drones armed with ``less than 
lethal'' weapons since 2015, something many in law enforcement say they 
are not comfortable doing.
  The use of drones for regular business operations is increasing, and 
that is a good thing. Farmers use drones to inspect their crops, 
security companies use drones to conduct surveillance over guarded 
properties, home repair companies use drones to assess damage on 
structures, and drones are even beginning to be used for home delivery 
services. While these abilities may prove convenient to our daily 
lives, we must not let the civilian applications of drone technology 
advance to weaponization.
  Outside of the United States, terrorist groups in the Middle East 
have used small drones as weapons. There is real concern that homegrown 
extremists in the United States could do the same thing. It is 
imperative that we take steps to protect the public before death by 
armed drone becomes a headline.
  There is no statute in the United States Code that affirmatively 
states that an unmanned aircraft system may not be used in the national 
airspace as a weapon. This amendment today protects the public from 
drones that have been weaponized, both lethal and nonlethal, by private 
citizens by preventing a person from flying an armed drone in the 
national airspace without FAA authorization. A person who violates this 
requirement may be fined a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation 
under the statute.
  I offer this language as an amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act 
of 2018 in order to align current legislation with available 
technology. It is time we take a preemptive, rather than a reactive, 
step to protect all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even 
though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This seems very 
commonsense to me.
  Earlier in the en bloc, my amendment was adopted, which would give 
the FAA authority to begin regulation of the small drones, which 
currently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by Congress.
  If this passes, that will allow the FAA, if my amendment stands in 
conference, to adopt this commonsense rule. Should my amendment not be 
adopted in conference with the Senate, and we pass this, the FAA would 
not have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they 
are prohibited from regulating them. Hopefully, both things will occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I recommend adoption of this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. HELICOPTER FUEL SYSTEM SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 44738. Helicopter fuel system safety

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person may not operate a covered 
     rotorcraft in United States airspace unless the design of the 
     rotorcraft is certified by the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to--
       ``(A) comply with the requirements applicable to the 
     category of the rotorcraft under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 
     (5), and (6) of section 27.952(a), section 27.952(c), section 
     27.952(f), section 27.952(g), section 27.963(g) (but allowing 
     for a minimum puncture force of 250 pounds if successfully 
     drop tested in-structure), and section 27.975(b) or 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of section 29.952(a), 
     section 29.952(c), section 29.952(f), section 
     29.952(g),section 29.963(b) (but allowing for a minimum 
     puncture force of 250 pounds if successfully drop tested in-
     structure), and 29.975(a)(7) of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment; or
       ``(B) employ other means acceptable to the Administrator to 
     provide an equivalent level of fuel system crash resistance.
       ``(2) Covered rotorcraft defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `covered rotorcraft' means a rotorcraft not otherwise 
     required to comply with section 27.952, section 27.963, and 
     section 27.975, or section 29.952, section 29.963, and 
     section 29.975 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as in 
     effect on the date of enactment for which manufacture was 
     completed, as determined by the Administrator, on or after 
     the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this section.
       ``(b) Administrative Provisions.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) expedite the certification and validation of United 
     States and foreign type designs and retrofit kits that 
     improve fuel system crashworthiness; and
       ``(2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, and periodically thereafter, issue a 
     bulletin to--
       ``(A) inform rotorcraft owners and operators of available 
     modifications to improve fuel system crashworthiness; and
       ``(B) urge that such modifications be installed as soon as 
     practicable.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to affect the operation of a rotorcraft by the 
     Department of Defense.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``44738. Helicopter fuel system safety.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio 
for working with me and Mr. Polis, listening to our concerns, and I 
appreciate their assistance.
  I rise today to offer an amendment we have been working on for almost 
3 years, which is designed to improve helicopter fuel system safety for 
newly manufactured helicopters.
  As the chairman knows, on July 3, 2015, a Flight for Life air 
ambulance helicopter took off in Frisco, Colorado. Just seconds later, 
the helicopter crashed in a parking lot next to the helipad. After 
impact, gasoline began to leak from the helicopter and a fire quickly 
erupted trapping the crew. The crash itself was largely survivable, but 
the post-crash fire contributed to the death of the pilot, Patrick 
Mahany, and severely burned the two flight nurses--Dave Repsher and 
Matthew Bowe. One of the flight nurses suffered burns on more than 90 
percent of his body.
  As we began learning what happened in Frisco, we discovered that a 
1994

[[Page H3662]]

FAA rulemaking required all newly certified helicopter designs to 
incorporate crash resistant fuel systems. The problem is that 
helicopter designs are certified once and then can be manufactured for 
years. So new helicopters, like the 1-year-old helicopter which crashed 
in Frisco, Colorado, are being built to a now unsafe design from the 
1970s.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. Since that 1994 rulemaking, there have 
been more than 175 post-crash fires and at least 80 deaths. We can do 
better, and we must do better.
  Since 2015, the FAA has finally started to address the issue. They 
convened the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group and tasked 
them with determining what requirements to place on newly manufactured 
helicopters moving forward. That working group submitted their final 
report last month and made evidence-based recommendations about what 
safety features should be required.
  My amendment today implements those recommendations of the working 
group by requiring all newly manufactured helicopters to be built with 
safer fuel systems within 18 months. We have known about this problem 
for decades, and it is past time we close the loophole from 1994 and 
improve the safety of these helicopters.
  Two people deserve special thanks: Patrick Mahany's wife, Karen, for 
her tireless advocacy for safer helicopters; and Chris Vanderveen, from 
KUSA-Channel 9, for his diligent reporting about the dangers of these 
fragile and outdated fuel systems.
  I would also like to thank Air Methods, the Air Medical Operators 
Association, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, and 
Helicopter Association International for working with me and my staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support from Air 
Methods, Helicopter Association International, and Air Medical 
Operators Association.

                                                  Air Methods,

                            Greenwood Village, CO, April 24, 2018.
     Hon. Ed Perlmutter,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Perlmutter: As the House of 
     Representatives prepares to consider HR. 4, the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, on 
     behalf of Air Methods, I want to thank you for your 
     dedication and attention to aviation safety, and in 
     particular your tireless efforts to make helicopter fuel 
     systems safer by equipping them with crash resistant fuel 
     systems (CRFS).
       At Air Methods, safety is our top priority. We have worked 
     continuously to strengthen our practices, instill a culture 
     of safety throughout our organization, and contribute to 
     industry-wide advances in aviation safety. As part of Air 
     Methods' dedication to the safety of its crews and patients, 
     we have committed to retrofitting our Airbus H125 and H130 
     (formally known as EC130) fleet with the updated CRFS.
       As you may know, in 2015 we partnered with Vector Aerospace 
     to conduct CRFS testing and seek certification for a crash 
     resistant fuel system for all Airbus single-engine 
     helicopters we operate. The first H125 with the new system 
     arrived at Air Methods' headquarters in Denver, CO on Dec. 
     30, 2017, following the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
     supplemental type certificate approval. To date, Air Methods 
     has received and completed the installation of 14 CRFS in our 
     fleet. The Company intends to roll out an entire fleet of 
     retrofitted Airbus H125 and H130 over the next two years.
       We believe the CRFS program is critical to the air medical 
     transportation industry and have been advocating for and 
     supporting CRFS for several years. We look forward to 
     continuing to work together with you and other legislators to 
     support efforts to improve industry-wide safety standards in 
     aviation safety and ensure the safety of those who fly with 
     us.
       Thank you for your leadership and willingness to engage Air 
     Methods while working toward ensuring safety for our patients 
     and crews. We look forward to working alongside you and your 
     office to promote aviation safety.
           Sincerely,

                                               Mr. Aaron Todd,

                                          Chief Executive Officer,
     Air Methods Corporation.
                                  ____


         HAI Statement on Representative Perlmutter's Amendment

       Washington, DC, April 25, 2018.--Helicopter Association 
     International (HAI) commends Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) for 
     his collaborative efforts in drafting Amendment 29 to improve 
     helicopter fuel system safety.
       Amendment 29 implements recommendations from the FAA 
     Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group to require all 
     newly manufactured helicopters to meet certain standards to 
     improve the crash resistance of helicopter fuel systems 
     within 18 months.
       HAI appreciates Rep. Perlmutter's work in addressing this 
     important safety issue and for his commitment to work so 
     closely with the working group's recommendations. As an 
     advocate for safety in the helicopter industry, HAI has been 
     an active participant in the FAA Rotorcraft Occupant 
     Protection Working Group and is committed to the safety 
     improvements the group's recommendation has brought before 
     the industry.
       HAI is the professional trade association for the civil 
     helicopter industry. HAI's 1,500 plus organizational members 
     and 1,800 individual members operate more than 4,500 
     helicopters approximately 2.3 million flight hours each year 
     in 73 nations. HAI is dedicated to the promotion of the 
     helicopter as a safe, effective business tool and to the 
     advancement of the international helicopter community.
                                  ____



                            Air Medical Operators Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 24, 2018.
     Hon. Ed Perlmutter,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Perlmutter: On behalf of the Air Medical 
     Operators Association (AMOA), I am writing today to express 
     our support for your proposed amendment on ``Helicopter Fuel 
     System Safety''. This amendment would codify the 
     recommendations of the FAA's Rotorcraft Occupant Protection 
     Working Group on Crash Resistant Fuel Systems (CRFS).
       Since its founding in 2009, AMOA and its member companies 
     have committed to an ongoing series of safety enhancements 
     and investments. Our efforts include actions to comply with 
     the FAA's Helicopter Air Ambulance rule, such as installing 
     Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS) and 
     Flight Data Monitoring Systems (FDMS), and establishing 
     Operations Control Centers (OCC). AMOA member companies have 
     also gone above and beyond regulatory requirements by 
     undertaking voluntary safety initiatives, including the use 
     of Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).
       In November, 2015, AMOA announced a commitment to the 
     installation of CRFS in all new aircraft and equipping 
     current aircraft with CRFS as those products become 
     available. We also supported the inclusion of Section 2105 of 
     the ``FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016'', 
     which directed the FAA to ``evaluate and update, as 
     necessary, standards for crash-resistant fuel systems for 
     civilian rotorcraft''.
       We are pleased to support your amendment as another 
     positive step in the continuous effort to improve the safety 
     of the life-saving transportation provided by AMOA's member 
     companies. AMOA urges the House to adopt your amendment.
       Thank you for your work on this very important issue.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Sally Veith,

                                               Executive Director,
                                Air Medical Operators Association.

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking 
Member DeFazio for their help through this process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering his 
amendment.
  This amendment implements critical recommendations from the FAA's 
Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group. Specifically the 
amendment will require newly manufactured helicopters meet specific 
safety standards to prevent post-crash fires from occurring.
  In many cases, fatal helicopter accidents are due to post-crash fires 
rather than the impact itself. Equipping these new helicopters with 
crash resistant fuel systems is absolutely critical in preventing 
thermal injuries and fatalities.
  I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership and persistence. 
When I say persistence, the gentleman has been working on this issue 
for a number of years, so, again, I congratulate him for that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
another gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Perlmutter. I 
am proud to join him in offering this amendment, which comes in a 
direct response to a tragedy that occurred in the district I am honored 
to represent, and countless other tragedies across the country.

[[Page H3663]]

  As Representative Perlmutter mentioned, back in 2015, there was a 
Flight for Life crash in Frisco, Colorado. The pilot, Patrick Mahany, 
died, and one person on board is still in the recovery process.
  The death and damage was caused not directly from the crash, but from 
the lack of a crash resistant fuel system that is already mandated in 
military helicopters, but, for some ridiculous reason, it is not 
mandated in civilian aircraft like the Flight for Life helicopter.
  I want to thank the widow of Patrick, Karen Mahany, for keeping this 
issue in front and foremost. I know how difficult it must be to go 
through a personal mourning process, but then to look above that and 
say: Let's stop this kind of tragedy from affecting other families. 
That is what Karen has done by putting herself out there.
  I am honored to be supportive of this amendment here today that will 
save lives and make sure that Patrick is among the last to suffer from 
a loss of life from this lack of simple safety equipment in 
helicopters.
  This important amendment simply requires the FAA to mandate crash 
resistant fuel systems in newly manufactured helicopters. I am also 
working on a tax credit to help fund retrofitting of existing 
helicopters. We can't let another tragedy lead to loss of life from an 
avoidable problem. All helicopters should be equipped with the best, 
most effective, and cost-effective technology available.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment and ensure that this is part of the final bill that comes out 
of the House and Senate as well.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this. I 
would ask for an ``aye'' vote on amendment No. 49, and I yield back the 
balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.


              Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. COASTAL OVERFLIGHT.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall ensure that all aircraft transitioning from flight over 
     ocean to flight over land shall fly at a safe altitude. Such 
     altitude shall not be lower than specific flight operations 
     require.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman DeFazio 
and, of course, Chairman Shuster for their hard work that they put into 
this.
  Unfortunately, my amendment, as it indicates, is that a large part of 
the job that I would have hoped that would have been accomplished by 
the FAA reauthorization was not done in a way that handles what is, in 
my area, the most significant problem. There are a great many 
provisions there. But my amendment today, which I am advocating today, 
seeks to correct one area that has been given underwhelmingly little 
treatment in this legislation, and that is called: correcting the 
problems of air noise over our neighborhoods.

                              {time}  1500

  My amendment, the amendment we are discussing at this point, will 
ensure that aircraft transitioning from flight over ocean to flight 
over land be no lower than is absolutely necessary for safety.
  Many times over our coastal communities, planes are flying much lower 
on approach, after taking off, and briefly climbing back over the ocean 
and then over the land.
  There is no reason that some aircraft need to be at 1,600 feet when 
other aircraft can safely fly at 3,500 feet. This amendment will 
correct that problem. It will require those aircraft that are coming 
over the ocean and onto land and into some flight pattern in our local 
airports and nationally in those airports, that they fly at the highest 
altitude that is safe in this situation.
  Unfortunately, I have had four amendments that were not permitted 
that would have corrected the noise problem altogether and it would 
have said that we would have then been able to address it.
  The reason it wasn't addressed as the bill was being prepared is that 
this legislation and the regulations of the FAA say that safety will be 
the first priority, efficiency will be the second priority, and then 
community impact on those communities below have third priority.
  Well, the fact is there is no reason why--number one, safety does 
have to be first, we know that--but there is no reason why the 
excessive noise and the impact of noise and pollution on the cities 
below a landing area or a taking-off area should not have more 
consideration than simply the efficiency of the airlines to save a few 
minutes.
  I am very upset that those amendments that would have corrected this 
problem--number one, all we have to do is make sure that we are 
mandating the right priorities for the FAA; that efficiency is less 
important than the communities that are being flown over, because every 
day, those people have to experience noise and pollution due to the 
fact that they live near an airport.
  So those amendments, however, were not made in order, and I would 
officially hope that we can deal with that later, but that is a great 
disservice to those people around the country who are suffering 
excessive noise that didn't need to happen.
  So this amendment goes far enough in terms of an issue like that, but 
we should be solving the problem by changing the priorities and 
mandating that all airplanes, when they are flying over populated 
areas, the people who they are flying over have to be given 
consideration by making sure that that plane is flying at the highest 
altitude that is safe.
  Unfortunately, as I say, the amendments that I offered that would 
have mandated that actually were not made in order.
  This amendment will come to grips a little bit on this issue, but we 
had an opportunity here to change and to solve one of the basic 
complaints that are being made throughout our country by American 
citizens when dealing with air traffic.
  When we are here, our job isn't just to watch out for the airliners. 
That is not it. We have to be considerate about the American people, 
and especially those people whose homes are there underneath the flight 
patterns.
  That is not what has happened in this legislation, and I am very 
disturbed about it, because I had five amendments that would have 
solved this problem once and for all, would have been fair to the 
airlines, would have made sure we were safe, that people were safe, but 
at the same time, we would see that the American people who live 
underneath these flight paths were treated fairly and that their 
families were not put at risk by excessive noise and by pollution that 
comes from airlines flying overhead.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for my amendment to be accepted, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida). The gentleman from 
Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is 
representing very well his constituents' concerns. We had an earlier 
discussion on the floor about the aircraft noise. An amendment was 
adopted to have the FAA study the speed of approach and take-off, which 
can dramatically reduce the noise impact.
  I have also asked the FAA to look at establishing alternate 
performance-based navigation routes so they are not using the same 
route every day over the same houses and the same neighborhoods.
  When I first saw this amendment, it seemed to me innocuous since it 
seems to follow the basic requirement in the

[[Page H3664]]

controller handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, section 561, which addresses 
this issue. However, we have been contacted by the National Air Traffic 
Controllers union, and they have expressed grave concerns that they 
think it may have unintended consequences.
  Unfortunately, they just contacted us, so we haven't been able to get 
the details of their concerns. So in that case, I would have to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made 
in order by the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act, including the 
     amendments made by this Act, may be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage 
     requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon 
     Act).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that this House 
has seen before in different configurations, but it is known as the 
Davis-Bacon amendment.
  What it does, it provides that none of the funds made available by 
this act may be used to implement, to administer, or enforce the 
prevailing rate of wage requirements, commonly referred to as the 
Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we know what this bill does. It was in 
1931, it was established for, I will say, trade protectionism, labor 
protectionism, to lock the African-American labor from Alabama out of 
the construction trades in New York City that were unionized at that 
time and strongly protected, and still are, actually, but the substance 
of it is this.
  I have a letter here that was written by Grover Norquist, the 
president of Americans For Tax Reform, and in summary, it says this: 
Because the Davis-Bacon Act reduces the number of jobs, increases 
costs, and has a racist history, funds from the FAA Reauthorization Act 
should not be used to fulfill Davis-Bacon Act requirements. Americans 
For Tax Reform, therefore, strongly supports Congressman King's 
amendment.
  That is one version of description of this bill.
  Here is another one I thought was a little bit more descriptive. This 
is an article written by George Will, and it is dated June 19, 2017. He 
references back to River City, and he says a quote from that, ``The 
Music Man'': You really ought to give Iowa a try, provided you are 
contrary.
  He starts out this article this way, and the quote is from ``Iowa 
Stubborn'', a song in ``The Music Man'', Mr. Chairman. It says:

       Contrary does not quite capture  Steve King's astringency. 
     The Iowa native and conservative Congressman was born, 
     appropriately, in Storm Lake, Iowa, and carries turbulence 
     with him. He also carries experience of actual life before 
     politics, when he founded a construction company, which is 
     one reason he has long advocated an excellent idea: repeal of 
     the Davis-Bacon law.
       King came to Congress in 2003, and has been stubbornly 
     submitting repeal legislation since 2005. He would not have 
     succeeded even if he were less of a prickly cactus and more 
     of a shrinking violet.
       Davis-Bacon is just another piece of government that is as 
     indefensible as it is indestructible. And so today, when 
     social hygienists are cleansing the public square of names 
     and statues tainted by historical connections with racism, 
     Davis-Bacon's durability is proof that a measure's racist 
     pedigree will be forgiven if the measure serves a progressive 
     agenda.

  It is time to put an end to Davis-Bacon. We can do that here today, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a perpetual debate here on the 
floor whenever it comes to the expenditure of Federal tax dollars on 
projects that are covered by Davis-Bacon, as would be projects under 
the Airport Improvement Program and other related activities by the 
FAA.
  The bottom line here is we can chase the lowest common denominator 
around the United States, or around the world sometimes, in terms of 
trade, and undermine the capability of Americans to make a decent 
living, to have a home and have a family, and live the American Dream.
  The savings are illusory at best. In many cases, they would go to 
profits for nonunion shops and others, and we would return to the old 
days of basically exploiting those who work in construction and related 
activities.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. DeFazio both for yielding, but 
especially for his leadership on this issue.
  As the ranking member said, this is something that comes up every 
year. Thankfully, Democrats and Republicans have stood together to 
protect this important worker protection.
  Let's just be clear about this. This is about the desire to engage in 
this race to the bottom to pay working families less money.
  The truth of the matter is coming from a community, a community like 
Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, where we have seen significant and continuing 
loss of earned income by working people, where we have a chance to say 
to the American people that when it is your tax dollars being spent, we 
are not going to use them to undermine the ability of a family to have 
a decent wage.
  People work hard at these jobs, they have trained long for these 
jobs, going through apprenticeships or other skilled training, and the 
idea that we would reverse a decades-long commitment to the American 
worker that when it comes to federally funded projects, we are going to 
ensure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you get a decent wage, 
I support that, and we all should.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I hear these arguments constantly: 
lowest common denominator, nonunion shops.
  We know it is union scale, there is a confession that it is, even 
though the law says that it is prevailing wage.
  Exploiting workers, race to the bottom, people work hard. These are 
standard lines that come out every year, but I am the one that has 
lived this. We have met payroll for over 42 years, and we pay a 
competitive wage. We want to hire the best people we can and pay them 
the best wages that we can, and we want to have the lowest turnover 
possible. And we are in pretty good shape that way after 42 years. I 
think I know about this.

  Davis-Bacon increases inefficiencies and it puts people in the wrong 
place doing the wrong thing for the wrong incentives.
  And by the way, who is hardworking? The taxpayers are hardworking. 
The taxpayers are paying the bill for an extra 20 percent on every 
construction project in America. In a lot of cases, we are borrowing 
the money from China and putting the debt onto our children. That is 
what we are faced with here, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, look around the country. There are many 
States

[[Page H3665]]

that have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal minimum 
wage of $7.50 an hour. That is pretty pathetic.
  My State is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum 
wage, but if we do away with--this says that federally funded contracts 
must receive the local prevailing wage for their work. In Oregon, we 
have recognized that with a higher minimum wage, so our prevailing 
wages are going to be higher than some State that only follows the 
Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.

                              {time}  1515

  So what might some contractor do? Oh, I can go over here and hire 
people who are used to earning $7.50 an hour. I am going to import them 
into Oregon. Of course, you are going to still have a problem with our 
minimum wage law, but this is what this is about is to find less 
expensive labor and move it around the country, and that, I believe, is 
a disservice to the working people of the United States.
  I would urge Congress, as it has done every other time this amendment 
has been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I appreciate the 
gentleman's remarks, but I would add for the body that the Federal 
minimum wage really is not relevant at all to this Davis-Bacon wage 
scale debate. There is nobody working under Davis-Bacon wage scales who 
is making minimum wage. And by the way, that Federal minimum wage is 
becoming irrelevant as competition for wages is driving things up.
  But here is another way to think about this: I have long said that if 
it is a road construction, you can build 5 miles of road instead of 4 
if you get rid of Davis-Bacon; five bridges instead of four if you get 
rid of Davis-Bacon.
  If it happens to be river construction--we lost a lock and dam on the 
Mississippi going into the weekend, lock and dam No. 11. These things 
cost money. There are 29 of those. We could either fix 23 of them under 
Davis-Bacon, or all 29 of them without Davis-Bacon.
  There are 45 major airports in America; and if we are going to 
renovate those airports, we can renovate all of them, or we can 
renovate 36 of them, depending on whether this amendment passes or 
fails.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from Americans for Tax 
Reform and an article from The Washington Post.

                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2018.
       Dear Members of Congress: I am writing in support of 
     Congressman Steve King's (R-IA) amendment (#63) to the FAA 
     Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4. The amendment prohibits the 
     usage of funds from the bill to ``implement, administer, or 
     enforce'' the prevailing wage requirements in the Davis-Bacon 
     Act.
       The Davis-Bacon Act is a 1931 federal law that has a 
     history of high costs, lost jobs and racism. It requires 
     contractors and subcontractors to pay the local ``prevailing 
     wage'' on public works projects (over $2,000) for laborers 
     and mechanics. The ``prevailing wage'' is usually a wage set 
     by unions and is typically much higher than the average wage 
     for the job in the area. This leads to higher government 
     project costs, hurting small non-unionized contractors and 
     costing low-skilled jobs.
       In fact, the Government Accountability Office (General 
     Accounting Office) in 1979 urged the repeal of Davis-Bacon 
     for these same reasons. Further, a 2011 study by the Heritage 
     Foundation found that the Act added almost $11 billion to the 
     deficit in 2011 in unnecessary expenses, while suspending the 
     Act would have added 155,000 construction jobs. Finally, the 
     Congressional Budget Office reported in 2016 that repealing 
     the act would reduce discretionary outlays by $13 billion 
     from 2018 through 2026.
       In addition to raising costs and losing jobs, the Act also 
     has racist origins and was passed during the Great Depression 
     because minority migrant workers were taking jobs meant for 
     white locals at lower wages.
       Because the Davis-Bacon Act reduces the number of jobs, 
     increases costs and has a racist history, funds from the FAA 
     Reauthorization Act should not be used to fulfill Davis-Bacon 
     Act requirements. Americans for Tax Reform, therefore, 
     strongly supports Congressman King's amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Grover Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 19, 2017]

 A Racist Vestige of the Past That Progressives Are Happy To Leave in 
                                 Place

                          (By George F. Will)

       ``You really ought to give Iowa a try. Provided you are 
     contrary.''--``Iowa Stubborn,'' from Meredith Wilson's ``The 
     Music Man''
       ``Contrary'' does not quite capture Steve King's 
     astringency. The Iowa native and conservative congressman was 
     born, appropriately, in Storm Lake, and carries turbulence 
     with him. He also carries experience of actual life before 
     politics, when he founded a construction company, which is 
     one reason he has long advocated an excellent idea--repeal of 
     the Davis-Bacon law.
       King came to Congress in 2003 and has been stubbornly 
     submitting repeal legislation since 2005. He would not have 
     succeeded even if he were less of a prickly cactus and more 
     of a shrinking violet. Davis-Bacon is just another piece of 
     government that is as indefensible as it is indestructible.
       It is too secure to require defending because it benefits a 
     muscular faction. Repeal would, however, reduce the cost of 
     new infrastructure by many billions of dollars. And today, 
     when social hygienists are cleansing the public square of 
     names and statues tainted by historical connections with 
     racism, Davis-Bacon's durability is proof that a measure's 
     racist pedigree will be forgiven if the measure serves a 
     progressive agenda.
       Davis-Bacon was enacted in 1931 to require construction 
     contractors to pay ``prevailing wages'' on federal projects. 
     Generally, this means paying union wage scales. It was 
     enacted as domestic protectionism, largely to protect 
     organized labor from competition by African Americans who 
     often were excluded from union membership but who were 
     successfully competing for jobs by being willing to work for 
     lower wages.
       In 1927, Rep. Robert Bacon, a Long Island Republican, was 
     miffed because the low bidder for a construction project in 
     his district--a veterans' hospital--was an Alabama contractor 
     who used black labor. That year, when Bacon first introduced 
     his legislation, he showed that he was not a narrow-gauge 
     bigot. He inserted into the Congressional Record the 
     following statement by 34 professors concerning immigration 
     legislation:
       ``We urge the extension of the quota system to all 
     countries of North and South America from which we have 
     substantial immigration and in which the population is not 
     predominantly of the white race . . . Only by this method can 
     that large proportion of our population which is descended 
     from the colonists . . . have their proper racial 
     representation.''
       By 1931, the Depression had made government construction 
     money especially coveted and Davis-Bacon passed with the 
     support of the American Federation of Labor. The 
     congressional debate that preceded enactment was replete with 
     references to ``unattached migratory workmen,'' ``itinerant 
     labor,'' ``cheap, imported labor,'' ``cheap bootleg labor'' 
     and ``labor lured from distant places'' for ``competition 
     with white labor throughout the country.''
       Hearings on Davis-Bacon brought out the drollery in Rep. 
     William Upshaw, a Georgia Democrat. He said he hoped his 
     Northern colleagues in Congress would permit a Southerner to 
     smile about ``your reaction to that real problem you are 
     confronted with in any community with a superabundance or 
     large aggregation of Negro labor.''
       In 1931, the unemployment rate of blacks was approximately 
     the same as the rate for the general population. Davis-Bacon 
     is one reason the rate for blacks began to deviate adversely. 
     In 1932, generally there were about 3,500 workers building 
     what became Hoover Dam. Never more than 30 were black.
       In 1993, with Congress stoutly opposed to taking anything 
     from something as powerful as organized labor, opponents of 
     Davis-Bacon turned to the judiciary. A lawsuit on behalf of 
     some minority contractors challenged the law's 
     constitutionality, arguing that it burdened the exercise of a 
     fundamental civil right--the right to earn a living. And that 
     it had a disparate impact on minority workers and small 
     minority-owned construction businesses. The suit languished 
     in court for almost a decade before the plaintiffs lost, 
     victims of excessive judicial deference to the legislature.
       In 1992, to expedite cleanup after Hurricanes Andrew and 
     Iniki, President George H.W. Bush suspended portions of 
     Davis-Bacon in South Florida, coastal Louisiana and Hawaii. 
     Bush's successor, Bill Clinton, promptly reversed Bush's 
     policy.
       A 2011 Heritage Foundation study estimated that Davis-Bacon 
     would add almost $11 billion to that year's construction 
     costs. That sum will be eclipsed when--if--bold talk about 
     making America's infrastructure great again is translated 
     into spending. Then we build up the national debt while 
     purchasing less infrastructure than the appropriated sums 
     should purchase.
       Davis-Bacon is rent-seeking, the use of political power to 
     supplant the market as the allocator of opportunity and 
     wealth. Rent-seeking is lucrative, which is why there is so 
     much of it, even when its pedigree is repulsive.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H3666]]

  

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 66, 69, 70, 71, 
72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 
99, 100, and 101 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered by 
Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:

        Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. fortenberry of nebraska

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. SAFETY EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITIES.

       Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) Constructing storage facilities to shelter snow 
     removal equipment or aircraft rescue and firefighting 
     equipment that is owned by the airport sponsor and used 
     exclusively to maintain safe airfield operations, up to the 
     facility size necessary to accommodate the types and 
     quantities of equipment prescribed by the FAA, regardless of 
     whether Federal funding was used to acquire the equipment.''.


           Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. suozzi of new york

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON AIRLINE AND PASSENGER SAFETY.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on airline and 
     passenger safety.
       (b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) the average age of commercial aircraft owned and 
     operated by United States air carriers;
       (2) the over-all use of planes, including average lifetime 
     of commercial aircraft;
       (3) the number of hours aircraft are in flight over the 
     life of the aircraft and the average number of hours on 
     domestic and international flights , respectively; and
       (4) the impact of metal fatigue on aircraft usage and 
     safety;
       (5) a review on contractor assisted maintenance of 
     commercial aircraft; and
       (6) a re-evaluation of the rules on inspection of aging 
     airplanes.


      Amendment No. 70 Offered by Ms. maxine waters of california

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 543. REPORT ON AIRCRAFT DIVERSIONS FROM LAX TO HAWTHORNE 
                   MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall issue and make available to the public a 
     report on diversions of aircraft from Los Angeles 
     International Airport (LAX) to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, 
     also known as Jack Northrop Field, in the City of Hawthorne, 
     California. This report shall cover at least the previous 
     one-year period and include the total number of aircraft 
     diversions, the average number of diversions per day, the 
     types of aircraft diverted, and the reasons for the 
     diversions.


          Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. pearce of new mexico

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SECTION ___. FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.

       Section 47118(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the airport is--
       ``(A) a former military installation; and
       ``(B) a primary airport.''.


        Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. fleischmann of tennessee

       At the end of title V, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 543. USE OF STATE HIGHWAY SPECIFICATIONS.

       Section 47114(d)(5) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Use of state highway specifications.--The Secretary 
     shall use the highway specifications of a State for airfield 
     pavement construction and improvement using funds made 
     available under this subsection at nonprimary airports 
     serving aircraft that do not exceed 60,000 pounds gross 
     weight if--
       ``(A) such State requests the use of such specifications; 
     and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) safety will not be negatively affected; and
       ``(ii) the life of the pavement, with necessary maintenance 
     and upkeep, will not be shorter than it would be if 
     constructed using Administration standards.''.


          Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. takano of california

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary should 
     produce a smart airports initiative plan that focuses on 
     creating a more consumer-friendly and digitally connected 
     airport experience. The plan should include recommendations 
     on modernizing technologies to provide more efficient check-
     ins, shortened security lines, Wi-Fi and GPS upgrades, as 
     well as improvements of aircraft turnaround for on-time 
     boarding and flights. The purpose of the initiative is to 
     invest in technologies and infrastructure toward better-
     connected airports while providing appropriate national 
     security and cybersecurity for travelers.


          Amendment No. 74 Offered by Ms. speier of california

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. OXYGEN MASK DESIGN STUDY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall conduct a study to review and evaluate the design and 
     effectiveness of commercial aircraft oxygen masks. In 
     conducting the study, the Administrator shall determine 
     whether the current design of oxygen masks is adequate, and 
     whether changes to the design could increase correct 
     passenger usage of the masks.


             Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. gibbs of ohio

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. STANDARDS FOR PILOTS.

       (a) Age Adjustment.--Section 44729(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``covered operations 
     until attaining 65 years of age'' and inserting ``covered 
     operations described under subsection (b)(1) until attaining 
     65 years of age and covered operations described under 
     subsection (b)(2) until attaining 70 years of age''.
       (b) Covered Operations.--Section 44729(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``means operations 
     under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.'' 
     and inserting ``means--
       ``(1) operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations; and
       ``(2) operations by a person that--
       ``(A) holds an air carrier certificate issued pursuant to 
     part 119 to conduct operations under part 135 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(B) qualifies as a program manager under subpart K of 
     part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(C) performed an aggregate total of at least 150,000 
     turbojet operations in--
       ``(i) calendar year 2017; or
       ``(ii) any subsequent year.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


          Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. hastings of florida

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. STUDY REGARDING TECHNOLOGY USAGE AT AIRPORTS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall conduct a study and report the findings of such study 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress regarding--
       (1) technology developed by international entities 
     (including foreign nations and companies) that have been 
     installed in American airports and aviation systems over the 
     past decade, including the nation where the technology was 
     developed and the any airports utilizing the technology; and
       (2) aviation safety related technology developed and 
     implemented by international entities with proven track 
     records of success that may assist in establishing best 
     practices to improve American aviation operations and safety.


          Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. denham of california

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. ___. APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION.

       Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act 
     of 2016 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(C)--
       (A) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
       (B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) Railroad facilities.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Deadlines.--
       ``(1) Not later than December 31, 2018, the Administrator 
     shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to carry out 
     the requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Not later than 12 months after publishing the notice 
     of proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     shall issue a final rule.''.


            Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. doggett of texas

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. APPLICABILITY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATION STANDARDS TO 
                   OPERATORS OF AIR BALLOONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited a the 
     ``Commercial Balloon Pilot Safety Act of 2018''.
       (b) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the

[[Page H3667]]

     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     revise section 61.3(c) of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (relating to second-class medical certificates), 
     to apply to an operator of an air balloon to the same extent 
     such regulations apply to a pilot flight crewmember of other 
     aircraft.
       (c) Air Balloon Defined.--In this section, the term ``air 
     balloon'' has the meaning given the term ``balloon'' in 
     section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     corresponding similar regulation or ruling).


           Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. carter of georgia

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL.

       (a) Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Equipment Rental.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to any cost-effectiveness 
     analysis for equipment acquisition conducted on or after the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the head of each executive agency shall consider 
     equipment rental in such cost-effectiveness analysis.
       (2) Federal acquisition regulation.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to implement the 
     requirement under paragraph (1).
       (b) Study of Cost-effectiveness Analysis.--Not later than 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a comprehensive report on 
     the decisions made by the executive agencies with the highest 
     levels of acquisition spending, and a sample of executive 
     agencies with lower levels of acquisition spending, to 
     acquire high-value equipment by lease, rental, or purchase 
     pursuant to subpart 7.4 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Equipment rental.--The term ``equipment rental'' means 
     the acquisition of equipment by contract from a commercial 
     source for a temporary period of use with no fixed duration.
       (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 102 of title 40, 
     United States Code.


          Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. lance of new jersey

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act (except as described in subsection 
     (d)), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report containing the results of the study 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b) Recommendations.--The Administrator shall make 
     recommendations based on--
       (1) an analysis of--
       (A) the economic effects of temporary flight restrictions, 
     particularly temporary flight restrictions issued pursuant to 
     section 91.141 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, on 
     airports or aviation-related businesses located or based in 
     an area covered by the temporary flight restriction; and
       (B) potential options and recommendations for mitigating 
     identified negative economic effects on airports or aviation-
     related businesses located or based in an area frequently 
     covered by a temporary flight restriction; and
       (2) an analysis of the potential for using security 
     procedures similar to those described in the Maryland Three 
     Program (allowing properly vetted private pilots to fly to, 
     from, or between the three general aviation airports closest 
     to the National Capital Region) during temporary flight 
     restrictions in the following airports:
       (A) Solberg Airport.
       (B) Somerset Airport.
       (C) Palm Beach County Park Airport (also known as Lantana 
     Airport).
       (c) Collaboration.--In making the recommendations described 
     in subsection (b), the Administrator shall consult with--
       (1) industry stakeholders; and
       (2) the head of any other agency that, in the 
     Administrator's determination, is a stakeholder agency.
       (d) Special Deadline.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     containing the results of the portion of the study described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A).


         Amendment No. 86 Offered by Ms. jayapal of washington

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY ON INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF FAST-GROWING 
                   AIRPORTS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with an 
     institution of higher education to conduct a study on the 
     infrastructure needs of airports--
       (1) in metropolitan statistical areas with an average 5-
     year, year-to-year population growth rate between 6 and 13 
     percent; and
       (2) with an average 5-year, year-to-year passenger growth 
     rate between 7 and 10 percent.
       (b) Contents.--The study conducted pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of the 
     airports described in subsection (a);
       (2) an examination of how such infrastructure needs are 
     related to the population and economic growth of relevant 
     metropolitan statistical areas;
       (3) an assessment of the infrastructure funding and 
     financing tools available to such airports;
       (4) the development of recommendations on additional 
     funding and financing tools that may provide significant new 
     revenues and flexibility;
       (5) an estimate of the population and economic growth rate 
     of the relevant metropolitan statistical areas over the next 
     10 years; and
       (6) the development of recommendations on how such airports 
     can best fund the infrastructure necessary to accommodate--
       (A) increases in passenger growth; and
       (B) population and economic growth in the relevant 
     metropolitan statistical areas.


            Amendment No. 89 Offered by Ms. meng of new york

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AIRCRAFT NOISE RESEARCH AND MITIGATION STRATEGY.

       Not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate a 5-year aircraft noise research and mitigation 
     strategy.


            Amendment No. 90 Offered by Ms. meng of new york

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ALTERNATIVE AIRPLANE NOISE METRIC EVALUATION 
                   DEADLINE.

       Not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall complete the ongoing evaluation of alternative metrics 
     to the current Day Night Level (DNL) 65 standard.


       Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. meadows of north carolina

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with 
     Federal law, and based on input by the public, ensure that 
     regulations, guidance, and policies issued by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration on and after the date of enactment of 
     this Act are issued in the form of performance-based 
     standards, providing an equal or higher level of safety.


        Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, in consultation with the National 
     Transportation Safety Board, shall issue a report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate that--
       (1) provides a technical review of systems capable of 
     detecting wrong surface alignment to determine whether the 
     capability exists to detect imminent wrong-surface landings 
     at each airport where such a system is in use; and
       (2) includes information gathered from the use of Airport 
     Surface Surveillance Capability System (ASSC) at San 
     Francisco International Airport since July 2017.


        Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CERTAIN AVIATION 
                   SAFETY RISKS.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report that--
       (1) identifies safety risks associated with power outages 
     at airports caused by weather or other factors, and 
     recommends actions to improve resilience of aviation 
     communication, navigation, and surveillance systems in the 
     event of such outages; and
       (2) reviews alerting mechanisms, devices, and procedures 
     for enhancing the situational awareness of pilots and air 
     traffic controllers in the event of a failure or an 
     irregularity of runway lights, and provides recommendations 
     on the further implementation of such mechanisms, devices, or 
     procedures.


        Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, in consultation with the National 
     Transportation Safety Board, shall issue a report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate that reviews the relative 
     benefits and risks of requiring the use of runway awareness 
     and advisory systems in turbine-powered airplanes

[[Page H3668]]

     under the provisions of part 121 or part 129 of title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.


        Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __ REVIEW OF FAA'S AVIATION SAFETY INFORMATION ANALYSIS 
                   AND SHARING SYSTEM.

       (a) Audit by Department of Transportation Inspector 
     General.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, the Inspector General shall initiate a follow-up 
     review of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 
     Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) 
     System to assess FAA's efforts and plans to improve the 
     system.
       (2) Review.--The review should include, at a minimum, an 
     evaluation of FAA's efforts to improve the ASIAS system's 
     predictive capabilities and solutions developed to more 
     widely disseminate results of ASIAS data analyses, as well as 
     an update on previous Inspector General recommendations to 
     improve this safety analysis and sharing system.
       (3) Report.--The Inspector General shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     its review and any recommendations to improve FAA's ASIAS 
     system.


         Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mrs. lawrence of michigan

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. CYBERSECURITY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE STANDARDS 
                   PLAN.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall, in consultation with the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology and the Committee on 
     Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, 
     transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report that contains a 
     cybersecurity and artificial intelligence standards plan for 
     Federal Aviation Administration operations that takes into 
     consideration the influence of cybersecurity on artificial 
     intelligence and of artificial intelligence on cybersecurity.


         Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. cardenas of california

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HIRING VETERANS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the aviation industry, 
     including certificate holders under parts 121, 135, and 145 
     of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, should hire more of 
     the Nation's veterans.


         Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. lipinski of illinois

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. GAO STUDY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives a report containing a review of the 
     following:
       (1) Direct and indirect effects on passengers, if any, 
     resulting from significant computer network disruptions of 49 
     CFR Part 121 air carriers between January 1, 2014, and the 
     date of enactment of this section, including--
       (A) systemwide delays;
       (B) flight cancellations; and
       (C) disrupted or broken itineraries.
       (2) An estimate of any expenses incurred by passengers 
     during significant computer network disruptions, including--
       (A) meals, lodging, and ancillary expenses per persons;
       (B) late hotel check-in or car rental fees;
       (C) missed cruise-ship departures; and
       (D) lost productivity.
       (3) Air carriers' contracts of carriage and interline 
     agreements to determine if and how air carriers accommodate 
     passengers affected by significant computer network 
     disruptions on other air carriers or foreign air carriers.
       (4) Whether passengers who have been displaced by 
     significant computer network disruptions are furnished with 
     alternative transportation aboard another air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier.
       (5) Costs incurred by airports, if any, to meet the 
     essential needs of passengers, including increased demands on 
     utilities, food concessionaires, restroom facilities, and 
     security staffing, during significant computer network 
     disruptions.
       (6) Other costs, if any, incurred by passengers, airports, 
     and other entities as a direct result of significant computer 
     network disruptions.
       (7) Processes, plans, and redundancies in place at air 
     carriers to respond to and recover from such network 
     disruptions.


          Amendment No. 101 Offered by Ms. moore of wisconsin

       Page 267, after line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. PROMPT PAYMENTS.

       (a) Reporting of Complaints.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that each 
     airport that participates in the Program tracks, and reports 
     to the Administrator, the number of covered complaints made 
     in relation to activities at that airport.
       (b) Improving Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall take actions to 
     assess and improve compliance with prompt payment 
     requirements under part 26 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (2) Contents of assessment.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Administrator shall assess--
       (A) whether requirements relating to the inclusion of 
     prompt payment language in contracts are being satisfied;
       (B) whether and how airports are enforcing prompt payment 
     requirements;
       (C) the processes by which covered complaints are received 
     and resolved by airports;
       (D) whether improvements need to be made to--
       (i) better track covered complaints received by airports; 
     and
       (ii) assist the resolution of covered complaints in a 
     timely manner;
       (E) the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution 
     mechanisms with respect to resolving covered complaints;
       (F) best practices that ensure prompt payment requirements 
     are satisfied;
       (G) the Federal Aviation Administration resources, 
     including staff, that are dedicated to helping resolve 
     covered complaints; and
       (H) how the Federal Aviation Administration can enhance 
     efforts to resolve covered complaints, including by using 
     timelines and providing additional staffing and other 
     resources.
       (3) Reporting.--The Administrator shall make available to 
     the public on an appropriate website operated by the 
     Administrator a report describing the results of the 
     assessment completed under this subsection, including a plan 
     to respond to such results.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Covered complaint.--The term ``covered complaint'' 
     means a complaint relating to an alleged failure to satisfy a 
     prompt payment requirement under part 26 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (2) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the airport 
     disadvantaged business enterprise program referenced in 
     section 140(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
     2012 (49 U.S.C. 47113 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en 
bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and 
minority. These Members put forward thoughtful amendments, and I am 
pleased to be able to support moving them en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  These amendments, en bloc, have been reviewed, both by the majority 
and the minority, and there is consensus on their merit. I urge my 
colleagues to support them.
  Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), I would say 
first that I strongly support his amendment and tried to work with the 
former FAA Administrator to rectify this issue that led to this 
extraordinary and unnecessary loss of life.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on that and his help. I wish the FAA had listened. And I thank Mr. 
Shuster and the staffs on both sides of the committee for including 
this amendment with others that need to be part of this action.
  It was about 2 years ago that the largest, most deadly crash of a 
commercial balloon in American history occurred just south of Austin, 
near Lockhart and Maxwell, Texas. It was, in fact, and remains the 
largest aviation disaster of any type in this decade. When that 
morning, that Saturday morning ended, this was all that was left, along 
with the bodies of the victims of this.
  The Federal Aviation Administration had been asked, prior to this 
incident, by the National Transportation Safety Board, to take a closer 
look and come up with reasonable regulations for the commercial balloon 
industry. The FAA failed to do that. Since this accident, the Federal 
Aviation Administration has been asked, once again, by the National 
Transportation Safety Board to act on this matter, and the FAA has 
again failed.
  The families of the victims launched a petition on their own to 
express their

[[Page H3669]]

concern about this. I have joined them, others have joined them, in 
asking for action, and it is clear that only legislative action by us 
will address this problem.
  I am hopeful that, with the passage of this amendment, which is 
narrow, which is bipartisan, and is directed only to assuring that 
individuals who are flying these--lifting off in these balloons are 
medically fit to do so. Had that been in place, I believe that this 
incident would never have happened.
  So the grief, the horror, that these families experienced, many of 
them want to channel it into seeing that no other family faces a 
similar crisis. This is an incident that had a widespread effect. I 
talked with the owner of the property where the crash occurred. There 
was a giant prayer circle around the Caldwell County Courthouse of 
concern of many people in the county for what happened here.
  I just want to thank my colleagues for incorporating this amendment 
in because I think it will help save lives in the future.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the House FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
  I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Shuster, and the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for the opportunity to 
offer this amendment.
  My amendment supports our Nation's more than 5,000 general aviation 
airports by providing a commonsense solution to reduce the cost and 
construction time for critical pavement projects, while maintaining the 
highest level of safety and quality.
  Our general aviation airports provide critical access, vital 
emergency and medical services, economic activity, and many other 
important services, as vital lifelines, especially in rural areas.
  However, the cost of building and maintaining runways at general 
aviation airports has become unnecessarily burdensome and costly, due 
to outdated pavement specification requirements that the FAA recognizes 
can and should be updated. As such, in consultation with key industry 
groups and agencies, I have introduced this amendment to address this 
issue.
  Among many other things, this reform will better equip our dedicated 
network of State aviation officials, airports, and other good 
personnel, working on the front lines in maintaining and improving our 
Nation's airports. This amendment will allow them to undertake more 
projects efficiently and safely, with commonsense savings that frees up 
additional funding for other critical projects.
  More specifically, after extensive field testing that has provided 
concrete evidence that States can and have utilized alternative 
pavement mixes, procured more conveniently and cost-effectively from 
local businesses on critical runway projects to safely maintain our 
Nation's runway systems of general aviation airports.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4 
to ensure that the FAA is helping businesses that have been 
historically discriminated against when it comes to government 
contracting. And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
support.
  Adoption of my amendment is a good start, but much more needs to be 
done to address discrimination and related barriers that still exist. 
This includes addressing the exclusion of any Federal DBE participation 
requirements or goals for Passenger Facility Charge-funded projects. It 
is critical that we don't miss the opportunity to address these 
barriers.

  I want to remind everyone that billions of dollars of transportation 
contracts are at stake in this reauthorization. And for businesses that 
have been historically discriminated against in transportation 
contracting, they just want a chance to compete for these dollars.
  In this reauthorization, Congress must continue to ensure that 
qualified minority and women-owned businesses in every congressional 
district can fairly compete for work.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Shuster and Ranking 
Member DeFazio.
  I rise today in support of this en bloc package that contains my 
bipartisan amendment requiring the FAA to study the economic impact of 
Temporary Flight Restrictions on local airports and to recommend ways 
to mitigate the negative effects, potentially including creating 
security procedures to allow limited use of certain airports during a 
TFR.
  This is about fairness for New Jersey pilots and small businesses. 
The President and the First Family use Trump National Golf Course in 
Bedminster, New Jersey, in the district I serve, as a weekend residence 
during the late spring, the summer, and the early fall. During such 
visits to Bedminster, a TFR is imposed in the area, shuttering Solberg 
and Somerset airports, and grounding recreational and training flights.
  The safety of the President and the First Family and the official 
visitors to Bedminster is, of course, paramount, but TFRs can be very 
challenging, and I want to find a compromise with the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Secret Service so that pilots can be vetted, 
prescreened, and allowed to fly.
  This is not a new idea. For some airports in Maryland, near 
Washington, D.C., pilots are permitted limited operation after being 
properly vetted. I seek the same status for constituents I serve in New 
Jersey.
  I thank the chairman for his interest and ask for further help in 
crafting this policy with the FAA. I further hope to work with him on 
establishing a temporary reimbursement program, as was done for the 
Maryland airports in the early 2000s. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the 
amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chair, last year was the safest on record for 
commercial air travel, and the United States has one of the safest 
systems in the world.
  However, last Tuesday's emergency landing by Southwest Airlines 
Flight 1380--and the tragic death of a passenger--Jennifer Riordan--is 
a call to action when it comes to assuring airline and passenger 
safety.
  Tuesday's incident on Southwest Flight 1380 was caused when the 
aircraft's left engine suddenly exploded mid-flight.
  Metal weakness or ``metal fatigue'' was found in the left jet engine 
that failed during the flight of Southwest 1380.
  This issue is one of the reasons I have introduced an amendment to 
H.R. 4, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act.
  The FAA needs to understand the full scope of any and all dangers 
connected to metal fatigue.
  My amendment instructs the FAA Administrator to produce a report on 
airline and passenger safety within 180 days of House passage.
  More specifically, my amendment instructs the FAA to study the issue 
of metal fatigue as well as the age and over-all use of U.S. commercial 
aircraft.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I imagine many in this room have seen the 
60 Minutes report on Allegiant Air.
  The report exposed numerous safety problems at Allegiant Air, a low-
cost carrier that is more than three times as likely to have in-flight 
mechanical emergencies than any other major airline.
  I'm deeply concerned about the issues at Allegiant.
  I also worry about reports that the FAA has shied away from punishing 
airlines that cut corners with regards to passenger safety. That's just 
flat-out unacceptable.
  Finally, Congress needs to be concerned about the practice of 
offshoring U.S. aircraft maintenance to foreign repair stations.
  Today, approximately 24 percent of total heavy aircraft maintenance 
is offshored to repair facilities in other countries, more than triple 
the share offshored in 2003.
  This offshoring has cost hardworking Americans thousands of aircraft 
maintenance jobs.
  This practice has also raised real concerns regarding the level of 
U.S. oversight on offshored maintenance work.
  Safety and security regulatory gaps persist, creating a double 
standard for domestic maintenance workers and workers overseas.
  A dangerous double standard that could result in an airline--
passenger tragedy.

[[Page H3670]]

  That's why my amendment also instructs the FAA to review policies 
regarding maintenance performed by contractors.
  Overall, our mission is simple, clear and all-important:
  To empower the FAA to root out any problems in the hopes of 
preventing any further tragedies.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION HELICOPTER FLIGHT PATHS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the National Capital 
     Region, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall review and revise helicopter flight 
     paths, including those used by the Department of Defense and 
     all military helicopters, identifying and issuing new 
     official paths for areas in which helicopters may be able to 
     fly at higher altitudes.
       (b) Considerations.--In carrying out the review and 
     revision under subsection (a), the Administrator must 
     consider--
       (1) residents living below the flight paths;
       (2) national security and emergency flight paths, which 
     shall only be used in cases of emergency; and
       (3) fixed-wing plane flight paths.
       (c) Definition of National Capital Region.--In this 
     section, the term ``National Capital Region'' means--
       (1) the District of Columbia;
       (2) Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties in Maryland;
       (3) Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William 
     Counties in Virginia; and
       (4) all cities and towns included within the outer 
     boundaries of the foregoing counties.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I consistently hear a great deal from my 
constituents about pervasive, intrusive helicopter noise. I have 
carefully listened to them for years, through community forums, 
townhalls, letters, emails, phone calls, and the like. I have also 
worked with both the FAA and the Department of Defense on possible 
solutions.
  We certainly have a difficult balance to strike in the National 
Capital Region, but people shouldn't have to live under the constant 
thunder of helicopter noise. Helicopter noise, by all accounts, has 
gotten significantly worse year after year after year. Even those who 
are neighbors with the Pentagon have noticed it has gotten much worse.

                              {time}  1530

  Last year, I had an amendment to the NDAA for the Department of 
Defense to conduct a study on mitigating the helicopter noise. We had 
excellent conversations. Colonels and majors came out from the Air 
Force, the Army, the Marines, and the FAA came out. We had big townhall 
meetings. In those conversations, we moved forward with a now completed 
DOD noise study.
  The Department of Defense has repeatedly informed me that they follow 
the FAA helicopter maps perfectly and that they fly at the required 
minimum altitudes. So as a solution, my amendment would require the FAA 
to simply review all the helicopter flight paths in the national 
capital region, including those used solely by the Department of 
Defense, to assess whether some of these helicopter trips could be 
safely flown at a higher altitude. If they can be, the amendment would 
also require the FAA to revise the official helicopter flight maps for 
this region to allow some relief for those communities that live below.
  Progress has remained very slow on this issue--glacial--and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment so that we can move 
forward with a responsible way to mitigate this helicopter noise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  This amendment would interfere with national security, homeland 
security, and law enforcement operations.
  As home to the Nation's Capital, the area serves a critical role for 
the country as home to the Federal Government. Each day, military 
pilots and other agencies use helicopters to conduct vital missions as 
part of our national defense and the operations of government. These 
agencies include the DOD, the Coast Guard, Park Police, Capitol Police, 
and other agencies. The missions they fly cannot be accomplished by any 
other means and are essential to our Nation's protection.
  This amendment would add complexity to the airspace and could affect 
the safety of our servicemembers and law enforcement and affect the 
efficiency of the airspace.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and I hope we 
can find some way to address them, but I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the chairman of the 
committee, the many conversations I have had with the general who runs 
the Washington Military District, with the Air Force and Army colonels, 
with the Marine major, and with many of the helicopter pilots, none of 
them have suggested for a moment that national security, homeland 
security, or law enforcement were at risk here. In fact, the pilots 
said: We would be happy to fly higher as long as we have permission 
from the FAA.
  We are not interfering in the slightest with their ability to 
accomplish their mission. We understand their mission. We respect it.
  No one is saying that we can't protect not only our Nation's top 
executives, but also the military officers who need to fly in and 
around this region. What we are simply saying is that, in many cases, 
300 feet, 500 feet, 700 feet is a more logical place to fly.
  We have had testimony that people have been in apartment buildings in 
Crystal City, looked out their window, and seen the helicopters fly 
below their window. This happens in Rosslyn, also.
  What we are simply asking is that the FAA responsibly look at 
whether--with lots of feedback from the Army, Air Force, Marines, from 
law enforcement, from the Secret Service--they couldn't, in fact, fly a 
few hundred feet higher than they fly right now. If they can't, we will 
accept that and do our best to move some other way. But, really, this 
is at the recommendation of our military leaders that the FAA examine 
this and find a way to move forward.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. GAO STUDY ON AVIATION WORKFORCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall initiate a study, based on previous studies, 
     that looks at the current and future supply of individuals in 
     the aviation workforce.
       (b) Review.--In carrying out the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall review, at a minimum--
       (1) the current state of the aviation workforce;
       (2) barriers to entry into the aviation workforce; and

[[Page H3671]]

       (3) options to increase the future supply of individuals in 
     the aviation workforce.
       (c) Submission.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study, including any findings and 
     recommendations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would direct 
the Comptroller General to study the current and future availability of 
pilots in the aviation workforce.
  Since the implementation of new pilot training requirements for first 
officers in 2013, two airlines which provided air service to my 
congressional district have filed for bankruptcy, citing the inability 
to find pilots as a primary factor in their financial struggles. Even 
before withdrawing from Nebraska, both airlines had poor flight 
cancellation records, which they indicated was caused by this issue, 
severely reducing enplanements at these airports.
  In rural areas like Nebraska's Third District, commercial air service 
provides a vital economic link for communities which are several hours' 
drive from the nearest major airport.
  In an effort to further address the concerns of the seven communities 
with passenger air service in my district and numerous others around 
the country, this amendment merely asks GAO to study what the current 
state of the aviation workforce is, where it is going in the future, 
and what, if anything, we can do to mitigate pilot shortages. We must 
do more to address these communities' concerns, and this study will 
provide valuable information as we seek to address this problem.
  Beyond the direct economic impact on these communities from the loss 
of these flights, these cancellations have also caused overall 
enplanements at airports such as Kearney, North Platte, and 
Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and other airports in a number of other States, 
to fall below the minimum 10,000 required to qualify for full Airport 
Improvement Program funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for moving my other amendment en bloc to provide regulatory relief to 
airports by treating them consistently with how they have been treated 
previously.
  Again, I urge support of this amendment we are currently debating, 
which will direct GAO to study our current and future aviation 
workforce needs, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.
  This amendment would require the Comptroller General to conduct a 
study on the current and future supply of individuals for the U.S. 
aviation workforce. The study would review the current state of our 
aviation workforce as well as barriers to entry.
  A strong and robust aviation workforce will ensure the U.S. remains 
the global leader and innovator in civil aviation; therefore, I support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the ranking member, Mr. Larsen. This 
amendment requesting the GAO study makes a lot of sense to me. The 
outlook of the future supply of individuals in the workforce, we know 
there are some shortages out there. This report will inform us about 
the current aviation workforce and needed actions to ensure we do have 
an adequate supply of workers in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and thank him 
for offering this amendment, and I urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment just asks 
the Comptroller General to assess our current situation for aviation 
and pilot needs. Canceled flights have been a major problem for 
communities with the smaller airlines, and certainly we want to prevent 
something in a similar manner from impacting the larger airports around 
the country as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
support, and I urge others to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 134(d)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Except with 
     respect to a metropolitan planning organization whose 
     structure consists of no local elected officials, nothing''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, since 1991, Federal law has 
stated that metropolitan planning organizations around the country 
should have local elected officials on their boards.
  In 2012, Congress passed MAP-21 and included a clause stating that 
these MPOs that were not in compliance had 2 years to conform.
  Now, in the previous administration, there was a Federal clause that 
was used to grandfather the Twin Cities--Minneapolis-St. Paul--
Metropolitan Council into compliance without having elected officials. 
So we now have, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the only board in 
the country that is entirely nonelected, the only MPO that has the 
authority to independently raise taxes and is not elected.
  Indeed, in Minneapolis-St. Paul, our metropolitan planning 
organization has a budget that dwarfs all the others in the country. In 
fact, it is larger than Houston; Dallas; Atlanta; Los Angeles; Phoenix; 
Seattle; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Boston; Philadelphia; Denver; 
Miami; Tampa; and Chicago combined.
  Now, why does an entity of this magnitude not require local elected 
officials?
  Now, I know some defending the status quo are now making misleading 
claims about this amendment, about our efforts here in Congress.
  First, the Met Council does perform transportation work, and their 
transportation advisory board does include elected officials. But the 
Federal Highway Administration and FTA ruled in 2015 that the TAB is an 
advisory body to the council; it is not the MPO. Even the previous 
administration, the Obama administration, disagreed with the Met 
Council's assertion that the TAB would be equivalent to a local elected 
official.
  Second, the defenders of the status quo are asserting that total 
chaos will ensue if this amendment passes. It will be a complete mess. 
Every other MPO was either formed in compliance with elected officials, 
or local elected officials on its board, or it came into compliance 
with this Federal law, and none gained widespread attention for chaos.
  The defenders of the status quo, including the current council and 
even the Governor of the State, now assert that, well, this is too 
uncertain, that chaos would ensue. I would argue that having a 17-
member board entirely appointed by the Governor is uncertainty. 
Uncertainty is a board that changes course every time there is a new 
election in the Governor's mansion.

[[Page H3672]]

  Finally, the critics of my amendment have begun stirring up the 
masses by saying this singlehandedly stops Federal funding for any 
transportation project in the area, even up to $2 billion by 2021. But 
in the past, when other MPOs have come into compliance, it hasn't had 
this effect. It simply hasn't happened. Besides, the congressional 
intent is that any MPO whose structure changes in order to adhere to 
Federal law will be given a transition period, a very generous one.
  The point is this amendment does not put in jeopardy any current or 
future Federal investments and grants. In fact, my colleagues and I 
from Minnesota have been working with the DOD to make certain our 
region gets the Federal support we need. But it is vital, and it has 
been vital for years in our region, that we determine our own 
governance structure, that the local elected officials have a say.
  If the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council thinks it would take too 
large an effort to find common ground in order to pursue an MPO that 
has elected officials, then that is the best indication that there is a 
serious problem with the status quo.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to give citizens power over their regional 
government. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns that he has with his local 
MPO. We all face our own challenges with local MPOs, but they are an 
important decisionmaking body that ensures local governments can take 
full advantage of Federal transportation programs in a coordinated 
manner.
  This amendment is attempting to break apart the operating structure 
of a local MPO, seemingly to punish it. It does not achieve the outcome 
the gentleman is hoping to achieve except to create government 
dysfunction.
  I would also note that some frequently argue that local decisions 
should be made by local decisionmakers. They say, ``Keep the Federal 
Government out of our business,'' except this amendment declares, if 
the decisions are not made to the liking of one Federal official, he 
can step in and blow up that local decisionmaking body.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I am urging my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Lewis and I thank the gentleman 
for offering this amendment. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations 
were created to ensure that local officials drive the decisions about 
how Federal and highway transit funds are spent. Unfortunately, for the 
gentleman's district, a loophole in the law undermines elected 
officials.
  This amendment ensures the structure of MPOs can consist of locally 
elected officials. This is a fair and commonsense amendment, so I urge 
all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would note that of all of the 
opposition in this body, they are already in compliance with what I am 
proposing for the Metropolitan Council. So, clearly, it didn't induce 
chaos, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, we have no other speakers, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title V of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 5__. INTERLINING.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a final rule 
     requiring an air carrier to seek, in the event of a delay 
     exceeding 3 hours, cancellation, or misconnection as a result 
     of circumstances or an event within an air carrier's control, 
     as determined by the Secretary of Transportation, alternative 
     transportation for displaced passengers, including aboard 
     another air carrier capable of transporting the passenger to 
     his or her originally scheduled destination, and to accept, 
     for a reasonable fee, the passengers of another air carrier 
     who have been displaced by circumstances or an event within 
     that air carriers control, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, or if the passenger has been involuntarily 
     denied boarding due to a lack of available seats.

     SEC. 5__. IMPROVED ACCOMMODATION OF DISPLACED PASSENGERS.

       Not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall modify part 259 of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations to include the following:
       (1) Adoption of plan.--Each covered carrier shall adopt a 
     contingency plan for lengthy terminal delays for its 
     scheduled flights at each large hub airport, medium hub 
     airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport in the United 
     States at which it operates or markets such air 
     transportation service and shall adhere to its plan's terms.
       (2) Contents of plan.--Each contingency plan for any delay, 
     cancellation, or misconnection, affecting a passenger who has 
     been involuntarily denied boarding as a result of 
     circumstances or an event within an air carrier's control, as 
     determined by the Administration of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (except in the case in which the flight crew 
     determines that a passenger poses a danger to the safety of 
     the flight), shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) Essential needs.--An air carrier shall ensure that 
     essential needs, including food, water, restroom facilities, 
     and assistance in the case of a medical emergency are met. If 
     the only available seating on the carrier's next flight to 
     the passenger's destination is a higher class of service than 
     purchased, the carrier shall transport the passenger on the 
     flight at no additional cost.
       (B) Meal voucher.--In the case of a delay exceeding 4 
     hours, the air carrier shall provide a meal voucher or, if at 
     the request of the passenger, cash equivalent to the value of 
     a meal voucher. An air carrier shall not be liable to 
     reimburse the passenger for expenses related to meals if the 
     passenger did not accepted such compensation when offered.
       (C) Lodging, transportation, and other vouchers.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of a delay, cancellation, or 
     misconnection as a result of circumstances or an event within 
     an air carrier's control, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, of which any portion exceeding 2 hours occurs 
     between the period of time between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., local 
     time, of the following day, and with no guarantee of 
     reaccommodation aboard another flight to the passenger's 
     destination within the following 2 hours after the initial 2-
     hour delay, an air carrier shall provide the passenger with 
     lodging, transportation to and from the airport to the place 
     of lodging, and meal expenses. At the request of the 
     passenger, the carrier shall alternatively compensate such 
     passenger with the cash equivalent to the value of the 
     lodging, meals, and transportation, or a voucher of 
     equivalent value for future travel on the carrier.
       (ii) Lodging unavailable.--If lodging is unavailable, an 
     carrier shall compensate a passenger with the cash equivalent 
     to the value of the lodging, meals, and transportation, or, 
     at the request of the passenger, a voucher of equivalent 
     value for future travel on the carrier.
       (iii) Proximity to residence.--The provisions of clauses 
     (i) and (ii) shall not apply to a passenger whose permanent 
     residence is 60 miles or less from the airport where such 
     delay, cancellation, or misconnection occurred.
       (iv) Failure to accept initial compensation.--An air 
     carrier shall not be liable to reimburse the passenger for 
     expenses related to meals if the passenger did not accept 
     such compensation when offered.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, while we have had some good news that airlines have 
improved their performance on various metrics in the past year, 
passengers continue to suffer frustrations.
  According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2017, 
285,000 flights were delayed due to circumstances within the airlines' 
control. And last year, even though bumpings were down, over 23,000 
were involuntarily denied boarding.
  When passengers are significantly delayed as a result of an event 
within the

[[Page H3673]]

airlines' control, it only makes sense that airlines be required to 
accommodate them better. But in a competitive climate where passengers' 
expectation of service quality has declined significantly, the airlines 
won't make these passenger-friendly changes, and that is why we need 
this commonsense amendment.
  My amendment will require airlines to place a passenger who is 
delayed more than 3 hours onto another carrier, if that would be the 
quickest way to get the passenger to their destination. This would 
apply only to delays caused by an event within an air carrier's 
control, as defined by the Secretary of Transportation.
  In order to make this easier for the airlines, it will require all 
carriers to accept such rebookings for a reasonable fee. At one time, 
this was a common practice. Some airlines still have these agreements--
called interline agreements--with other airlines. And some have, in the 
past year, created new interline agreements. But many airlines still 
fall short and some require passengers to ask for this treatment in 
order to receive it.
  This amendment also requires airlines to ensure that passengers have 
access to essential needs, such as medical care and restrooms, no 
matter when or where a delay occurs. It requires meal vouchers to be 
given in the event of delays longer than 4 hours, and it requires hotel 
accommodations during lengthy overnight delays that occur between 10 
p.m. and 3 a.m.
  These measures would go a long way to improving airline passenger 
protections. In order to make sure that this is done in the best 
possible manner, the Secretary of Transportation will engage in a 
rulemaking process, giving the airlines and the flying public an 
opportunity to have input.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a re-regulation of the 
airlines that was soundly defeated in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. It would force airlines to interline, which 
refers to agreements among airlines to carry each other's passengers. 
Most airlines already have interline agreements with other airlines, 
and the freedom to do so is important to preserve.
  Forcing all airlines unwilling into such deals will have unintended 
consequences. Customers will be punished and forced to bear the burden 
of the service fares of other airlines. The problems caused by this 
amendment would be most acute in smaller communities that have few 
flights per day.
  H.R. 4 includes provisions requiring air carriers to prominently 
disclose to passengers what services will be offered in the event of 
widespread disruption. The underlying bill contains a number of other 
consumer protections that are widely supported by stakeholders and 
Members alike.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, 
but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. There is no doubt 
that time and time again, the airlines have a lot of work to do in the 
realm of customer service. With little competition in the U.S. airline 
industry, airlines are no longer required to compete on the quality of 
services they provide to consumers, yet, the industry has become the 
world's most profitable due in large part to countless ancillary fees 
they charge passengers.
  I believe certainly that more must be done to restore basic rights 
and fairness in air travel. However, the amendment, as drafted, does 
take a one-size-fits-all approach to customer service that may not be 
appropriate for every situation.
  Before legislating prescriptive requirements for the airlines when 
passengers are displaced, I think the committee should hold additional 
hearings and study these issues more thoroughly. I hope we can agree on 
that.
  A recent lesson learned was with the Department of Transportation 
tarmac delay rule, a rule with great intentions that had several 
unintended consequences, such as passengers becoming stranded overnight 
at diversion airports hundreds of miles from their destination. 
Congress had to mitigate some of these issues in the 2016 FAA 
extension.
  When we are proscriptive on the customer service front, we have to be 
sure we are getting it right. But I do want to thank Mr. Lipinski for 
offering this amendment. I hope he will continue to work with the 
committee to perfect it, but I stand in opposition to it.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Larsen for his 
comments. I thank Chairman Shuster for his work on this bill. There are 
many good provisions in this bill, one that has to do with disclosure.
  But it still does not give the flying public enough protection. That 
is why we need this amendment.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the Consumers Union, Travelers 
United, the Consumer Federation of America, and Flyers Rights.
  We expect when we buy a ticket on an airline that we will get that as 
quickly as possible. Glitches occur, but if it is something that is in 
the control of the airline, I think we should expect to be put on 
another airline to get to our destination as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 14501(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6) respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Additional limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State, political subdivision of a 
     State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not 
     enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having 
     the force and effect of law prohibiting employees whose hours 
     of service are subject to regulation by the Secretary under 
     section 31502 from working to the full extent permitted or at 
     such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any 
     additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees 
     work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under 
     such section, including any related activities regulated 
     under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to limit the provisions of paragraph 
     (1).'';
       (4) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)--'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)--
     ''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated) by striking 
     ``Paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall have the force and effect as if enacted on the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-305).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, real quickly, let me just explain what the

[[Page H3674]]

F4A Denham amendment does. This clarifies the intent of the 1994 FAA 
bill; thus, how it got its name, the F4A.
  It created one Federal regulatory standard for meal and rest breaks 
or hours of service for interstate freight and passenger motor 
carriers. This was originally in the FAA bill of 1994. It also included 
piece rate.
  Now, we have passed this issue several times from the House over to 
the Senate--a very good bipartisan bill--but while we have had great 
bipartisanship in the past, to get greater bipartisanship, and to work 
with labor, we actually took out the piece rate issue.
  Now, this bill only deals with meal and rest--the same as that piece 
of it that was in 1994 where Congress, where this body actually 
reported out saying: ``State economic regulation of motor carrier 
operations causes significant inefficiencies, increased costs, 
reduction of competition, inhibition of innovation and technology, and 
curtails the expansion of markets.''
  This is about interstate commerce, making sure that you can drive a 
truck transporting goods from one State to another without having 
challenges going from a patchwork of States across the entire country.
  We want these professional drivers to be safe, meaning if you get 
tired, take a break. What we don't want to do is say, at 2 hours, you 
need to pull over immediately--on the bridge, on the highway, wherever 
you are at, creating an unsafe condition.
  Stop at the rest stop. Stop at the truck stop. Stop when it is 
convenient, when it is safe, and when you are tired.
  We want to give these professional drivers flexibility in interstate 
commerce. That was in 1994. That was the law of the land until the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reconvened and changed some of 
these motor carrier laws. The amendment and the Federal Standard only 
apply to interstate. What you do in your own State is up to your State.
  But interstate, going across State lines, which the Constitution 
enumerated to the Federal Government in Article I, section 8, clause 3 
of the Commerce Clause. Interstate hours of service regulations would 
continue to be regulated by the States. But this has already been 
proven by the U.S. Department of Transportation who wrote the rule that 
this is the safest way for interstate commerce.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  I rise today in support of this amendment offered by Mr. Denham, Mr. 
Cuellar, and myself. Trucking companies and truck drivers are the 
backbone of our Nation in terms of transportation, and certainly, much 
of the San Joaquin Valley that I represent.
  Agricultural products, fruits, nuts, and vegetables that are put on 
American's dinner tables every night are grown in the San Joaquin 
Valley, and they provide an important part of our sustenance.
  Many of these truckers have one or two trucks, and they are literally 
small-business people. Sadly, because of the recent court decisions 
that were noted by the author of this amendment, these companies that 
operate across State lines have been exposed to unfair litigation that 
have been costly, and I know of cases where major motor carriers have 
gone out of business because of this.
  The amendment would clarify that when operating across State lines, 
meals and rest break requirements will be governed by Federal law, not 
a patchwork of conflicting State laws. That just makes good common 
sense. This is consistent with action taken by the Congress--as was 
noted--in 1994, to provide uniform rules across the country for safety 
purposes.
  Some of my colleagues have claimed time in opposition saying this 
amendment would overturn protections like minimum wage and vacation. 
This amendment in no way impacts minimum wage or vacation, or those 
issues that have been raised in this fashion. It is simply not true.
  This amendment, I believe, is prosafety, proworker, and proeconomy. 
The fact is, we have been dealing with this issue for a number of 
years, and it is time that we finally avoid the confusion and 
strengthen this measure out.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chair, I offered a narrow fix for this in what was true 
interstate commerce because of the potential confusion between Federal 
hours of service and State hours of service, and that was rejected.

                              {time}  1600

  This is an incredibly broad preemption. It is not as stated. For 
instance, we just heard you have to pull over, no matter where you are. 
No. If you don't take your rest break, you have to be paid, but you 
don't have to stop and pull over.
  Beyond that, this would preempt paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks, 
paid sick leave, paid family leave, payment for time detained at a 
loading dock, payment for anything other than a flat rate by the load.
  This is an extraordinary preemption that we have here. The drivers 
are already exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. So they can't get 
overtime. If we wipe out the State laws and there is no existing 
Federal law, truck drivers are really getting it stuck to them here.
  In fact, this amendment would expand Federal preemption over trucking 
operations to include, for the first time, wages and working 
conditions, something Congress never contemplated in 1994.
  It is opposed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, 
the largest trucking organization; the Teamsters; American Association 
for Justice; and numerous safety groups. This is not as it is being 
presented. This is overly broad, and it should be opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Denham 
amendment, which would overturn a Federal court decision that 
determined that California meal and rest break laws apply to truckers.
  On July 4, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 
trucking operators in California must allow for 30-minute meal breaks 
after 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest break after 4 hours worked. 
This meal and rest break is very reasonable, when you consider that 
truck drivers can be subject to 14 hours of on-duty time.
  This amendment would not only preempt California's law, but would 
also preempt laws in 21 other States and territories that guarantee 
meal and rest breaks.
  This amendment is further harmful as it includes broad preemption 
language, as Mr. DeFazio stated, that would prohibit State and local 
governments from enacting laws that ``impose any additional obligation 
on motor carriers.'' This preemption would attack State minimum wage 
laws, sick leave laws, family leave laws, and other laws that protect 
truck drivers' pay and benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, States should be allowed to set these important 
standards for truck driver working conditions as they see fit for the 
health and safety of their workers and for our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Denham amendment, and 
I include in the Record letters of opposition from the Teamsters, 
American Association for Justice, Truck Safety Coalition and others, 
and the National Employment Law Project.

Teamsters Letter Opposing Denham Amendment Regarding Truck Driver Wage 
                            and Benefit Laws

       This week, the US House of Representatives will consider 
     legislation to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (FAA).
       The trucking industry is trying to hijack that bill. They 
     want to insert language which takes away almost any 
     protection truck drivers are granted under state law. This 
     includes destroying the right to paid sick leave, paid 
     vacations, FMLA, state guarantees of a lunch or rest break 
     during a shift, and worse.
       The language states the following:
       ``A State, political sub-division of a State or political 
     authority of 2 or more States

[[Page H3675]]

     may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other 
     provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting-
     employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by 
     the Secretary under section 31502 from working to the full 
     extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such 
     section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor 
     carriers if such employees work to the full extent or at such 
     times as permitted under such section, including any related 
     activities regulated, under part 395 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.''
       Say you're a trucking company who doesn't want a driver 
     taking a few hours off for a doctor's appointment this week. 
     Now you're in luck! Under this provision, the driver isn't 
     working to the ``full extent permitted'' under the minimal 
     federal rules, so they lose any state protections 
     guaranteeing them the right to go to the doctor!
       What happens if that driver needs to take extended state-
     protected FMLA? Taking time off under state FMLA laws would 
     mean that driver is not working to the ``full extent'' they 
     otherwise could be under the federal rules, so it's not 
     allowed!
       What if a state decides that a truck driver should get paid 
     while they wait in line for hours on end to drop off their 
     load? Well, that's an additional obligation being put on the 
     employer, and that won't be allowed either!
       The House must not include this anti-safety, anti-worker 
     provision in the FAA bill. This provision would overturn any 
     state's law that goes above the bare minimum federal rules 
     for truck drivers. No state could demand that drivers need to 
     get paid for non-driving time or take action against 
     companies who misclassify their drivers as independent 
     contractors. Any state laws that raise wages or protect the 
     working conditions of drivers would immediately be 
     overturned. It refers to these state laws as ``additional 
     burdens'' being placed on motor carriers and says that they 
     need to be done away with. States couldn't even give drivers 
     time off to go vote! What's worse, all these changes are made 
     retroactive to 1994. All of the progress states have made 
     over the past two decades would evaporate overnight.
       Truck crashes are up 45% from 2009. Injuries are up 57%, 
     and deaths from those crashes are also up 28%. Now is not the 
     time to push drivers even further by taking away protections 
     that make sure they are well-rested and alert.
       We urge you to OPPOSE the Denham amendment (amendment #140 
     as filed with the rules committee) if it comes up on the 
     floor during consideration of the FAA bill H.R. 4.
       Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact 
     me.
           Sincerely,

                                            Samuel P. Loesche,

                                       Legislative Representative,
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
                                  ____


              [From the American Association for Justice]

 Protect Truck Drivers and Highway Safety: Oppose Preemption of State 
                 Protections in the FAA Reauthorization

       AAJ strongly opposes the Denham amendment to H.R. 4, the 
     FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This amendment preempts 
     state and local labor regulations, laws, and court decisions, 
     many of which have been on the books for decades, protecting 
     commercial truck drivers. What was originally offered to just 
     preempt state labor protections, commonly known as the ``meal 
     and rest break'' protections, morphed into something much 
     broader and much worse in that it now preempts ANY 
     ``additional obligation on motor carriers.'' Therefore, this 
     amendment will provide for a sweeping exemption for 
     commercial trucking drivers from being covered by all state 
     and local wage and hour laws, including, but not limited to 
     meal and rest break laws, paid sick leave, minimum wage, sick 
     pay, jury duty, disability and medical leave, and even 
     worker's compensation laws.
       The Denham amendment would deny truck drivers, including 
     many who exclusively work only within their home state, from 
     state protections. Included in these protections is meal and 
     rest break laws that allow truckers to take a lunch break 
     and/or a rest break after driving on the road for a certain 
     number of hours. In most cases, these breaks are no more than 
     a ten-minute rest or a half hour lunch and often only occur 
     when an employee works a full day, still allowing the 
     employer the flexibility to determine when and how they are 
     taken.
       Meal and rest break protections are especially important 
     for highway safety. Commercial truck drivers are a class of 
     workers whose fatigue has been a consistent and proven cause 
     of highway injuries and deaths. Commercial truck drivers 
     often operate trucks exceeding 26,000 pounds and typically 
     work up to 14 hours a day, which puts other drivers and 
     pedestrians at serious risk of injury or death. In fact, 
     nearly 4,000 people die in large truck crashes each year, 
     with driver fatigue being the leading cause.
       Protecting highway safety should be a top priority of 
     Congress. Oppose the Denham Amendment.
       By preempting state laws that protect workers, this 
     amendment should be opposed because of the following:
       The Denham amendment provides a sweeping exemption for 
     motor carrier drivers from being covered by State and local 
     wage and hour laws, including meal and rest break laws, paid 
     sick leave, minimum wage, sick leave, jury duty, disability 
     and medical leave, and even worker's compensation laws. It 
     should be noted that the Federal government has NO policy on 
     many of these protections including sick leave, paternity 
     leave, or family leave meaning, that if these workers are 
     exempt from coverage under State law, and there is no Federal 
     law, they are left without any protections. In addition, the 
     amendment prohibits any additional obligations on motor 
     carrier employers--which gives these employers a blank check 
     to continue the current unsustainable models of driver 
     compensation and also pre-emptively stops any future reforms 
     to improve driver wages and working conditions at the State 
     and local level.
       This is a clear violation of states' rights. This amendment 
     would eliminate each state's ability to protect their workers 
     and citizens, an area which has historically been recognized 
     as part of a state's police powers. Under the 10th amendment, 
     there has always been a presumption against preemption of 
     state laws that protect the welfare, safety and health of the 
     public, including a state's labor laws. If this amendment is 
     adopted, Congress would be overturning hundreds of state laws 
     that have provided its workers, including truck drivers, with 
     employee protections they need to carry out their work in a 
     safe and productive manner.
       Congress has rejected numerous attempts to preempt similar 
     state meal and rest protections in the past, repeatedly 
     declining to overturn the ability of states to govern the 
     work and safety conditions of their workers in this area. In 
     addition, the Department of Transportation also opposed meal 
     and rest break preemption in 2014, arguing that ``there is a 
     presumption against preemption in areas of traditional State 
     `police powers' or control, and that labor laws are a clear 
     area of traditional State control. Currently, twenty states 
     have versions of these types of protections on the books 
     which would immediately be wiped out by this amendment, 
     including laws in CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, KY, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV, 
     NH, NY, ND, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, and WV.
       If preempting meal and rest break laws in twenty states was 
     not bad enough, the new Denham amendment is broader, 
     preempting state employment and labor laws in ALL 50 States. 
     Some of the state laws that would be impacted by this overly 
     broad amendment are: minimum wage, sick pay, jury duty, 
     disability, medical leave and even worker's compensation 
     laws. If this Denham amendment passes, truck drivers, who 
     frequently avail themselves of worker's compensation benefits 
     based on the precarious nature of their job, will no longer 
     be covered by their state worker's compensation laws. This is 
     an atrocious and unfair attack on one class of workers.
       Under Federal law there is no available remedy to a worker 
     if a trucking company chooses to break the law and refuse a 
     worker to take a meal or rest break. State laws, on the other 
     hand, like the one in California, impose a monetary fine on 
     the employer equal to one hour's pay if the employer violates 
     the law. Therefore, if this amendment is adopted there will 
     be no remedy and thus no incentive for trucking companies to 
     allow drivers to take breaks, creating a serious public and 
     highway safety issue. It should be noted that these breaks 
     are not mandatory and are instead at the discretion of the 
     individual driver.
       By eliminating the incentive for trucking companies to 
     follow the law and allow their truckers to take breaks, this 
     amendment would result in a greater likelihood of crashes due 
     to fatigue. Nearly 4,000 people die in large truck crashes 
     each year and driver fatigue is the leading cause. This 
     amendment not only harms the safety of commercial truck 
     drivers, but the motoring public and pedestrians at large.
       The amendment would also overturn state laws that require 
     workers to be paid for all hours worked at the agreed upon 
     minimum rate. Instead, companies would be allowed to only pay 
     drivers for the time they spend driving, despite the fact 
     that drivers are required to spend a great deal of time 
     performing non-driving duties in the fulfillment of their 
     employment such as pre and post trip inspections, maintenance 
     and loading and unloading.
       The amendment would preempt state law that limits the 
     number of hours a regulated driver may work including state 
     disability discrimination and workers' compensation 
     provisions where an employer has discretion to return a 
     driver to work with limited work hours following an accident 
     or illness. Moreover, the amendment would eliminate the right 
     to take any leave under state versions of the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act or allow reasonable accommodation to 
     provide an employee time off of work for prayer or religious 
     practice under state religious discrimination laws.
       The amendment applies retroactively: If wiping out worker 
     and truck drivers' existing rights weren't bad enough, this 
     amendment applies retroactively and would therefore wipe out 
     lawsuits, settlements, and judgments won by truck drivers for 
     employer violations going back to 1994. That's 23 years of 
     jurisprudence and judgments that held trucking companies 
     accountable for breaking the law and violating their 
     employees' rights. The retroactivity provision is an affront 
     to states' rights and state courts.

[[Page H3676]]

     
                                  ____
                                                   April 18, 2018.
     Re Preemption of State Rights in FAA Reauthorization.

     Hon. Members of the House,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned 
     organizations, we write to remind you of our continued 
     opposition to the inclusion of any language in the FAA 
     reauthorization bill that would preempt state regulations 
     that protect commercial drivers. These essential, 
     longstanding laws were specifically designed to reduce worker 
     fatigue and to protect workers and the public from workplace 
     crashes, injuries, and deaths.
       As you know, previous Congresses have rejected such 
     preemption language, commonly known as the ``meal and rest 
     break'' provision, time after time because it would overturn 
     the ability of states to govern the working conditions of 
     their truck drivers. This amendment would deny truck drivers, 
     including many who never leave that state, from taking the 
     lunch break and/or a rest break which they are granted under 
     state law. In most cases, these breaks are no more than a 
     ten-minute rest break or a half hour break for lunch. They 
     often only occur when an employee works a full day and the 
     employer typically retains flexibility to determine the 
     manner in which their employees take these breaks. Twenty 
     states have versions of these laws on the books which would 
     immediately be upended, including laws in CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, 
     KY, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV, NH, NY, ND, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, and 
     WV.
       In addition to being bad policy, Congress has not had a 
     single public hearing on this issue or any meaningful 
     discussion and analysis of its merits. This fundamental 
     change to surface transportation policy clearly falls within 
     the jurisdiction of a surface transportation bill, and yet it 
     was rejected during the last highway bill. It has no place in 
     any legislation reauthorizing of the FAA.
       We urge you to continue to reject any language overturning 
     basic state protections for truck drivers as you consider FAA 
     reauthorization legislation. We greatly appreciate your 
     support for protecting American workers and look forward to 
     working with you to safeguard these important state laws.
           Sincerely,
         The International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
         American Association for Justice;
         Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association;
         Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety;
         Truck Safety Coalition;
         Road Safe America;
         Parents Against Tired Truckers;
         Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways;
         Center for Auto Safety;
         Consumer Federation of America;
         Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
         SMART-TD (UTU);
         KidsAndCars.org;
         Trauma Foundation.
                                  ____



                               National Employment Law Project

     Vote ``NO'' on Denham Amendment to H.R. 4
       Congressman Denham has introduced an amendment to the 
     Federal Aviation Administrative Authorization Act, (FAAAA) 
     that would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing any law 
     or regulation that imposes on interstate motor carriers any 
     obligation beyond that covered in the so-called ``hours of 
     service'' regulations under federal law.
       The amendment provides that ``A State, political sub-
     division of a State, or political authority of 2 or more 
     States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other 
     provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting 
     employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by 
     the Secretary under section 31502 from working to the full 
     extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such 
     section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor 
     carriers. . . .'' While the amendment specifically overrules 
     state rest and meal breaks provisions, its broad language 
     would reach even farther and deny truck drivers the 
     protections of a wide range of state and local labor 
     standards that have protected them for decades.
       The bill represents an enormous overreach by the federal 
     government and overrules decades of court precedents 
     confirming that truck drivers are entitled to basic minimum 
     and prevailing wages, paid sick days, and to be properly 
     classified as employees. It would carve truck drivers out of 
     traditional workplace protections like unemployment 
     compensation and workers' compensation as well as more recent 
     standards that states and localities, have seen fit to afford 
     their residents.
       This big government overreach is the latest phase of the 
     corporate ``preemption'' strategy, backed by industry front 
     groups like ALEC and conservative donors like the Koch 
     Brothers, that seeks to go over the heads of state and local 
     governments to roll back a wide range of broadly popular 
     worker protections. This sweeping rollback would reverse that 
     eighty years of worker protections and leave truck drivers 
     more vulnerable to long hours and abusive working conditions.
       Here are some examples of how the law would affect millions 
     of truck drivers across the country:
       Workers compensation and truck safety. Truck drivers have 
     the highest number and rate of fatal occupational injuries of 
     any occupation in the United States. They also have the 
     second highest rate of all occupations for non-fatal serious 
     injuries and illnesses. Yet this amendment would deny 
     workers' compensation benefits to all drivers and deny states 
     the right to establish safety and hazardous cargo controls, 
     under the guise of providing uniform federal law.
       Minimum wage. At a time when Congress has kept the federal 
     minimum wage frozen at just $7.25 since 2009, more and more 
     states have been stepping in to fill the void. Currently, 31 
     states and more than 40 localities have approved minimum wage 
     increases above the current federal level of $7.25, affecting 
     the pay of 15 million workers. But the amendment would strip 
     truck drivers of these minimum wage protections.
       Independent contractor abuses. Worker misclassification is 
     a pressing issue for truck drivers across the country, and 
     across the country, courts and administrative agencies are 
     finding, applying state laws, that truck drivers have been 
     illegally treated as independent contractors by the 
     companies. The amendment would reverse these decisions and 
     allow companies to continue to violate the law.
       Paid family leave and paid sick days. Currently, the 
     District of Columbia, 9 states (Connecticut, California, 
     Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Arizona, Washington, Rhode 
     Island and Maryland) and dozens of local jurisdictions extend 
     paid sick leave to workers. And California, New Jersey, New 
     York and Washington State provide paid family leave to 
     workers in those states. The amendment would take away that 
     benefit from truck drivers in some of the highest trucking-
     dependent states in the country.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, Mr. DeFazio has said this 
is very broad. It is very, very succinct. Title 49, section 31502 is 
the law. The regulation is 40 CFR 395.
  This is very, very tight compared to 1994, when the Democrats had 
control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Mr. DeFazio, 
thankfully, supported it back then as a very broad measure dealing with 
all of these different issues. Now we are just dealing with meal and 
rest breaks only.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar) on this very bipartisan measure.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, again, overall, I want to thank Chairman 
Shuster and the ranking member for bringing the FAA bill in. But I also 
support the Denham-Costa amendment because, again, it is a narrow fix 
on this, and it is only dealing with the interstate itself.
  Again, this is a bill that we want to provide some sort of uniformity 
on. And that is all we are asking for is uniformity. If it crosses 
State lines, we are asking for that type of uniformity. Again, in the 
industry, those drivers cross State lines multiple times per day.
  So I would ask that you support the Denham-Costa amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. McEachin).
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preempt important State-level 
protections that help ensure truck drivers are treated fairly and that 
they are able to do their jobs safely.
  This language would not just erase existing meal and rest break 
requirements for truckers, it would affect all State and local wage and 
hour laws, with adverse implications for everything from workers' 
compensation to the minimum wage. Such changes would be deeply harmful, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose them.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If you simply pick up a load in the Port of Los Angeles and drive 10 
miles, that is deemed interstate commerce.
  The problem I was trying to solve with a narrow amendment version was 
to say if someone is coming in from Nevada, crosses the State line, 
there would be confusion. That is truly interstate commerce.
  What would apply?
  The Federal hours of service, State hours of service, et cetera.
  There could be a narrow fix to this issue. This is a preemption. If 
you read the law, basically, from working to the full extent permitted 
or at such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any 
additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees work to the 
full extent or at such times as permitted under such section.

[[Page H3677]]

  So this would be a preemption in all 50 States of whatever additional 
conditions they have put in place.
  Many truck drivers are horribly abused already. We have done away 
with detention time, and we have put time limits on when they can 
drive, for safety reasons. They are sitting at some warehouse facility 
for hours, earning nothing, unless we can have States with additional 
laws. If we aren't going to have Federal detention time, perhaps States 
can help with these problems. We do not want abused, tired truck 
drivers out on the road. We want them to be able to earn a living wage.
  I have met with drivers out of the port numerous times who are in 
these endless deals to theoretically buy their truck that they never 
get to buy, and some of them are not even taking home $100 a week and 
working many, many hours. We need to stop these abuses. This is only 
going to make things worse.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


  Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 67 to the end that the 
Chair put the question de novo.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was rejected.


     Amendment No. 81 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall begin a study of international air cargo 
     services among the United States and Central American, South 
     American, and Caribbean Basin countries, that--
       (1) analyzes the supply of and demand for air cargo 
     transportation services among the United States and Central 
     American, South American, and Caribbean Basin countries;
       (2) analyzes the supply of and demand for air cargo 
     transportation services between--
       (A) the United States, Central American, South American, 
     and Caribbean Basin countries; and
       (B) Africa and Europe;
       (3) identifies the busiest routes in terms of cargo 
     capacity and frequency of air service;
       (4) identifies any air carrier or foreign air carrier hubs 
     in Central American, South American, and Caribbean Basin 
     countries at which a significant amount of air cargo is 
     sorted, handled, or consolidated for transportation to or 
     from the United States;
       (5) identifies any air carrier or foreign air carrier hubs 
     in the United States at which a significant amount of air 
     cargo is sorted, handled, or consolidated for transportation 
     to or from Central American, South American, and Caribbean 
     Basin countries.
       (6) identifies any significant gaps in the air cargo 
     services or cargo air carrier networks--
       (A) among the countries described in paragraph (2)(A);
       (B) between such countries and Africa; and
       (C) between such countries and Europe; and
       (7) assesses the possible impact of the establishment of an 
     air carrier hub in Puerto Rico at which air cargo is sorted, 
     handled, or consolidated for transportation to or from the 
     United States, including the impact on--
       (A) the employment rate and economy of Puerto Rico;
       (B) domestic and foreign air transportation of cargo;
       (C) United States competitiveness in the air transportation 
     of cargo;
       (D) air cargo operations at other airports in the United 
     States; and
       (E) domestic air carrier employment.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study described in subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--The term ``Caribbean Basin countries'' has 
     the same meaning given the term ``Caribbean Basin country'' 
     in section 501 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1737).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman 
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 4 and, of course, the amendment that I am supporting 
and sponsoring today. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for providing me 
the opportunity to speak on behalf of this simple yet very important 
amendment that Congressman  Don Young has joined me in sponsoring.
  A lack of reliable data on which Congress can make informed decisions 
is a recurring problem for Puerto Rico. The bipartisan Congressional 
Task Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico, established by PROMESA, 
unanimously recognized this problem, back in 2016, and made numerous 
recommendations that were designed to include Puerto Rico in Federal 
statistical programs.
  My amendment to H.R. 4 is consistent with the Task Force's 
recommendations to remove regulatory burdens inhibiting commerce 
between Puerto Rico, the U.S. mainland, and international markets.
  Puerto Rico needs to reactivate and diversify its economic base in 
order to emerge not just from the current disaster situation, but to 
have stable, long-term economic growth.
  My amendment simply seeks to evaluate Puerto Rico's potential as an 
air cargo hub and to obtain recommendations as to how to best achieve 
that potential. It does not change the current statutory regime over 
air cargo operations on the island. It simply seeks to provide the hard 
data required to make a sound decision about it.
  It provides for evaluating the competitive situation in the Caribbean 
region, not just relative to Puerto Rico, but to other foreign and 
continental U.S. airport hubs serving it so that it also serves to 
provide a better picture for the overall future competitive environment 
in the region.
  Puerto Rico has the necessary infrastructure in three international-
capable airports with ample space and ports. The island also has a 
privileged geographic location that gives it high potential as a cargo 
hub between the Caribbean and northern South America, Europe, and 
Africa, as well as being at the southeasternmost corner of the U.S. 
domestic air transportation network.
  The Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the largest business and 
employer organization on the island, supports this amendment and the 
potential development of the island as an air cargo hub. The island's 
pharmaceutical manufacturers would also benefit from Puerto Rico 
becoming an air cargo hub.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the private sector and private investments that 
will play the leading role in rebuilding our island's economy. This is 
now, more than ever, critical as we continue to recover in the 
aftermath of the hurricanes.
  The island of Puerto Rico's jobs are American jobs, and we look for 
new opportunities to grow our economy. This amendment will provide the 
data to evaluate what would be the capacity for developing this kind of 
business activity and what its potential impact would be on the local 
and national economy.
  I want to thank Chairmen Shuster and LoBiondo for their support and 
guidance, and I urge that this amendment be adopted as part of this 
reauthorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3678]]

  

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, but I do support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Without objection, the 
gentleman is recognize for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
  This amendment requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office, or 
the GAO, study air cargo traffic in the Caribbean, including an 
assessment and data collection. This data and assessment are needed to 
help assess Puerto Rico's role as a cargo hub for international 
traffic. I look forward to seeing what the GAO reports.
  Therefore, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, this bill will 
provide data that is important for the due recognition in terms of the 
capabilities of the island for the near future, and I hope this bill 
will pass and give Puerto Rico the opportunities we need to fulfill the 
opportunities in the region and the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mrs. Comstock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SPACEPORTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress on State Spaceport Contributions.--It 
     is the Sense of Congress that--
       (1) State government-owned and -operated spaceports have 
     contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure 
     improvements to the national space launch infrastructure, 
     providing the United States Government and commercial 
     customers with world-class space launch and processing 
     infrastructure that is necessary to support continued 
     American leadership in space;
       (2) State spaceports play a critical role in providing 
     resiliency and redundancy in the national launch 
     infrastructure to support national security and civil 
     government capabilities, and should be recognized as a 
     critical infrastructure in Federal strategy and planning;
       (3) continued State and local government investments at 
     Federal and non-Federal launch facilities should be 
     encouraged and to the maximum extent practicable supported in 
     Federal policies, planning and infrastructure investment 
     considerations, including through Federal-State partnerships;
       (4) there is currently no Federal infrastructure investment 
     program funding or encouraging State and local government 
     investment in spaceport infrastructure, unlike Federal grant 
     programs to encourage continued investment in all other modes 
     of transportation, including aviation, highways, ports, and 
     rail, which limits opportunities for the Federal government 
     to leverage and coordinate infrastructure investments with 
     State and local governments;
       (5) Federal investments in space infrastructure should 
     enable partnerships between Federal agencies with state 
     spaceports to modernize and enable expanded 21st century 
     space transportation infrastructure, especially multi-modal 
     networks needed for robust space transportation that support 
     national security, civil, and commercial launch customers; 
     and
       (6) States that have made investments to build, maintain, 
     operate, and improve capabilities for national security, 
     civil, and commercial customers should be commended for their 
     infrastructure contributions to both Federal and non-Federal 
     launch sites, and encouraged through a variety of programs 
     and policies to continue these investments in the national 
     interest.
       (b) Establishment of Office of Spaceports.--
       (1) Establishment of office of spaceports.--Title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of 
     subtitle V the following:

                  ``CHAPTER 515--OFFICE OF SPACEPORTS

``Sec.
``51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports.

     ``Sec. 51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports

       ``(a) Establishment of Office.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     identify, within the Office of Commercial Space 
     Transportation, a centralized policy office to be known as 
     the Office of Spaceports.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Office of Spaceports 
     shall be to support, promote, and enable infrastructure 
     improvements at Federal Aviation Administration-licensed 
     spaceports in the United States.
       ``(c) Functions.--The Office of Spaceports shall--
       ``(1) support licensing activities for launch sites;
       ``(2) develop and implement policies that promote 
     infrastructure improvements at licensed public launch sites;
       ``(3) provide technical assistance, guidance, and support 
     to licensed public spaceports;
       ``(4) promote United States licensed spaceports within the 
     Department; and
       ``(5) strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in launch 
     infrastructure and increase resilience for the Federal 
     Government and commercial customers.
       ``(d) Recognition.--In carrying out the functions assigned 
     in subsection (c), the Secretary shall recognize the unique 
     needs and distinctions of spaceports that--
       ``(1) launch to orbit; and
       ``(2) are involved in suborbital launch activities.
       ``(e) Director.--The Associate Administrator for Commercial 
     Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall designate a Director of the Office of Spaceports.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `spaceport' means a launch site that is 
     licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(2) The term `public spaceport' means a launch site that 
     is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration and is 
     owned or operated by a State or local governmental entity, 
     including political subdivisions of a State or local 
     government.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     chapters of title 51, United State Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end of subtitle V the following:

``515. Office of Spaceports................................51501''.....

       (c) Report on National Spaceports Policy.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) A robust network of space transportation 
     infrastructure, including spaceports licensed by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, is vital to the growth of the 
     domestic space industry and America's competitiveness and 
     access to space.
       (B) Non-Federal spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration have significantly increased the launch 
     infrastructure of the United States through significant 
     investments by State and local governments, which have 
     encouraged greater private investment.
       (C) These spaceports have led to the development of a 
     growing number of orbital and suborbital launch sites that 
     are available to the national security, civil, and commercial 
     space customers at minimal cost to the Federal Government.
       (D) The Federal Government, led by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, should seek to promote the growth, 
     resilience, and capabilities of this space infrastructure 
     through policies and through partnerships with State and 
     local governments.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) evaluates the Federal Government's national security 
     and civil space launch demands and the needs of the United 
     States and international commercial markets;
       (B) proposes policies and programs designed to ensure a 
     robust and resilient orbital and suborbital spaceport 
     infrastructure to serve and capitalize on these launch 
     opportunities;
       (C) reviews the development and investments made by 
     international competitors in foreign spaceports;
       (D) makes recommendations on how the Federal Government can 
     support, encourage, promote, and facilitate greater 
     investments in infrastructure at public spaceports licensed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration; and
       (E) considers and makes recommendations about how 
     spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     can fully support and enable the national space policy.
       (3) Updates to the report.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall--
       (A) update the previous report prepared under this 
     subsection; and
       (B) submit the updated report to Congress.
       (4) Consultations required.--In preparing the reports 
     required by this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with 
     individuals including--
       (A) the Secretary of Defense;
       (B) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration;
       (C) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; and
       (D) interested persons at spaceports, State and local 
     governments, and industry.
       (d) Report on Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching 
     Grants.--
       (1) GAO study and report.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study regarding spaceport 
     activities carried out pursuant to chapters 509 and 511 of 
     title 51, United States Code, including--
       (A) an assessment of potential mechanisms to provide 
     Federal support to spaceports, including the airport 
     improvement program

[[Page H3679]]

     established under subchapter I of chapter 471 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and the program established under chapter 
     511 of title 51, United States Code;
       (B) recommendations for potential funding options, 
     including funds that may be collected from launch providers 
     or launch customers; and
       (C) any necessary changes to improve the spaceport 
     application review process.
       (2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study described in 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with 
     sources from each component of the launch process, including 
     interested persons in industry and government officials at 
     the Federal, State, and local levels.
       (3) User-funded spaceports.--In reviewing funding options, 
     the Comptroller General shall distinguish between spaceports 
     that are funded by users and those that are not.
       (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report containing results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.


       Modification to Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mrs. Comstock

  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment No. 84 be modified in the manner that I have placed at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 84 printed in part A of House Report 
115-650 offered by Mrs. Comstock:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SPACEPORTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress on State Spaceport Contributions.--It 
     is the Sense of Congress that--
       (1) State government-owned and -operated spaceports have 
     contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure 
     improvements to the national space launch infrastructure, 
     providing the United States Government and commercial 
     customers with world-class space launch and processing 
     infrastructure that is necessary to support continued 
     American leadership in space;
       (2) State spaceports play a critical role in providing 
     resiliency and redundancy in the national launch 
     infrastructure to support national security and civil 
     government capabilities, and should be recognized as a 
     critical infrastructure in Federal strategy and planning;
       (3) continued State and local government investments at 
     Federal and non-Federal launch facilities should be 
     encouraged and to the maximum extent practicable supported in 
     Federal policies, planning and infrastructure investment 
     considerations, including through Federal-State partnerships;
       (4) there is currently no Federal infrastructure investment 
     program funding or encouraging State and local government 
     investment in spaceport infrastructure, unlike Federal grant 
     programs to encourage continued investment in all other modes 
     of transportation, including aviation, highways, ports, and 
     rail, which limits opportunities for the Federal government 
     to leverage and coordinate infrastructure investments with 
     State and local governments;
       (5) Federal investments in space infrastructure should 
     enable partnerships between Federal agencies with state 
     spaceports to modernize and enable expanded 21st century 
     space transportation infrastructure, especially multi-modal 
     networks needed for robust space transportation that support 
     national security, civil, and commercial launch customers; 
     and
       (6) States that have made investments to build, maintain, 
     operate, and improve capabilities for national security, 
     civil, and commercial customers should be commended for their 
     infrastructure contributions to both Federal and non-Federal 
     launch sites, and encouraged through a variety of programs 
     and policies to continue these investments in the national 
     interest.
       (b) Establishment of Office of Spaceports.--
       (1) Establishment of office of spaceports.--Title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of 
     subtitle V the following:

                  ``CHAPTER 515--OFFICE OF SPACEPORTS

``Sec.
``51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports.

     ``Sec. 51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports

       ``(a) Establishment of Office.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     identify, within the Office of Commercial Space 
     Transportation, a centralized policy office to be known as 
     the Office of Spaceports.
       ``(b) Functions.--The Office of Spaceports shall--
       ``(1) support licensing activities for launch sites;
       ``(2) develop policies that promote infrastructure 
     improvements at licensed public launch sites;
       ``(3) provide technical assistance and guidance to licensed 
     public spaceports;
       ``(4) promote United States licensed spaceports within the 
     Department; and
       ``(5) strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in launch 
     infrastructure and increase resilience for the Federal 
     Government and commercial customers.
       ``(c) Recognition.--In carrying out the functions assigned 
     in subsection (b), the Secretary shall recognize the unique 
     needs and distinctions of spaceports that--
       ``(1) launch to orbit; and
       ``(2) are involved in suborbital launch activities.
       ``(d) Director.--The Associate Administrator for Commercial 
     Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall designate a Director of the Office of Spaceports.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Spaceport.--The term `spaceport' means a launch site 
     that is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(2) Public spaceport.--The term `public spaceport' means 
     a launch site that is licensed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and is owned or operated by a State or local 
     governmental entity, including political subdivisions of a 
     State or local government.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     chapters of title 51, United State Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end of subtitle V the following:

``515. Office of Spaceports................................51501''.....

       (c) Report on National Spaceports Policy.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) A robust network of space transportation 
     infrastructure, including spaceports licensed by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, is vital to the growth of the 
     domestic space industry and America's competitiveness and 
     access to space.
       (B) Non-Federal spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration have significantly increased the launch 
     infrastructure of the United States through significant 
     investments by State and local governments, which have 
     encouraged greater private investment.
       (C) These spaceports have led to the development of a 
     growing number of orbital and suborbital launch sites that 
     are available to the national security, civil, and commercial 
     space customers at minimal cost to the Federal Government.
       (D) The Federal Government, led by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, should seek to promote the growth, 
     resilience, and capabilities of this space infrastructure 
     through policies and through partnerships with State and 
     local governments.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) evaluates the Federal Government's national security 
     and civil space launch demands and the needs of the United 
     States and international commercial markets;
       (B) proposes policies and programs designed to ensure a 
     robust and resilient orbital and suborbital spaceport 
     infrastructure to serve and capitalize on these launch 
     opportunities;
       (C) reviews the development and investments made by 
     international competitors in foreign spaceports;
       (D) makes recommendations on how the Federal Government can 
     support, encourage, promote, and facilitate greater 
     investments in infrastructure at public spaceports licensed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration; and
       (E) considers and makes recommendations about how 
     spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     can fully support and enable the national space policy.
       (3) Updates to the report.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall--
       (A) update the previous report prepared under this 
     subsection; and
       (B) submit the updated report to Congress.
       (4) Consultations required.--In preparing the reports 
     required by this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with 
     individuals including--
       (A) the Secretary of Defense;
       (B) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration;
       (C) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; and
       (D) interested persons at spaceports, State and local 
     governments, and industry.
       (d) Report on Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching 
     Grants.--
       (1) GAO study and report.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study regarding spaceport 
     activities carried out pursuant to chapters 509 and 511 of 
     title 51, United States Code, including--
       (A) an assessment of potential mechanisms to provide 
     Federal support to spaceports, including the airport 
     improvement program established under subchapter I of chapter 
     471 of title 49, United States Code, and the program 
     established under chapter 511 of title 51, United States 
     Code;
       (B) recommendations for potential funding options, 
     including funds that may be collected from launch providers 
     or launch customers; and
       (C) any necessary changes to improve the spaceport 
     application review process.

[[Page H3680]]

       (2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study described in 
     paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with 
     sources from each component of the launch process, including 
     interested persons in industry and government officials at 
     the Federal, State, and local levels.
       (3) User-funded spaceports.--In reviewing funding options, 
     the Comptroller General shall distinguish between spaceports 
     that are funded by users and those that are not.
       (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report containing results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).

  Mrs. COMSTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The ACTING Chair. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentlewoman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment reflects several 
policy recommendations that have been proposed in various forms over 
the last several years, including Representative Bridenstine's Space 
Renaissance Act.
  State spaceports have become increasingly important elements of our 
national space launch infrastructure, with States like Virginia, 
Florida, and Alaska contributing hundreds of millions in infrastructure 
improvements to launch sites to better support NASA, DOD, and 
commercial launch.
  State spaceports like the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops 
Island in Virginia, which launches Orbital ATK's Antares and Minotaur 
rockets, have provided new, low-cost capabilities for NASA, Defense, 
and commercial users, while also improving resiliency and 
responsiveness. The recent NASA Reauthorization Act, which passed the 
House Science Committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote last week, 
included language urging NASA to fully leverage such State spaceport 
investments to meet infrastructure demands to support national 
missions.
  As we now consider this FAA Reauthorization Act, it is also important 
to note that the FAA currently plays a critical role in licensing and 
working with these spaceports as they grow their infrastructure and 
capabilities to support a variety of missions. This amendment will help 
recognize the important role of these spaceports to our national launch 
infrastructure, establish an office of spaceports to better coordinate 
licensing, policy, and technical support for spaceports, as well as 
direct two important reports--one by the Secretary of Transportation 
and another by GAO--to address policy issues facing spaceports in our 
growing launch market.
  The amendment is supported by a bipartisan group of my colleagues 
from Virginia, Maryland, and Florida and is supported by Virginia 
Space, Space Florida, and the National Association of Spaceports, among 
others.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, even though I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment being 
offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  This amendment would create within the FAA Commercial Space 
Transportation Office an office of spaceports, a centralized policy 
office that will support and promote infrastructure improvements at 
FAA-licensed spaceports.
  This amendment also requires a report to Congress evaluating the 
Federal Government's national security and civil space launch demands, 
and offers recommendations on how we can further support and promote 
greater investment in commercial space infrastructure. It also requires 
the Comptroller General to study spaceport activities in the U.S.
  Commercial space transportation and enabled industries includes 
satellite and ground equipment manufacturing, satellite services and 
remote sensing, and distribution industries. In 2015, the size of the 
global space industry was estimated to be $335 billion; the size of the 
U.S. space industry was approximately $126 billion, which includes $89 
billion in revenues generated by satellite services, manufacturing, 
ground equipment, and launch services.
  The commercial launch of satellites is particularly important as 
these technologies offer us a range of services from television and 
radio broadcasts to high-speed internet and weather forecasting.
  This amendment will strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in this 
nascent industry and offer us a better understanding of how we can 
maintain a robust and resilient network of space transportation 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INSTALLATION OF OVERFLIGHT NOISE MITIGATION DEVICES.

       To reduce the impact of overflight noise on local 
     communities, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall engage and cooperate with air carriers 
     to identify and facilitate opportunities for the air carriers 
     to retrofit aircraft with devices that mitigate noise, 
     including vortex generators.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and 
Ranking Member DeFazio for their hard work, and also Mr. Larsen as 
well.
  I have to confess that mentally in my mind I have a list of 
Republicans I wish wouldn't run for office again, but I am proud and 
happy to say that, Mr. Shuster, you are not on that list. I just want 
to congratulate you on your good work not only on this bill, but in the 
past on a lot of issues that affect not only the constituents in your 
district, but also people across this country. Thank you for your 
service.
  I was hoping that I might come to the floor today to talk about ways 
that we might prevent terrorists and criminal organizations from 
registering aircraft in the United States. There is a Department of 
Transportation Inspector General report that is well known to Members 
here that basically lays out the case for more closely scrutinizing the 
registration of U.S. aircraft. They came up with a few glaring examples 
that I will mention here.
  Recently, it was discovered that Hezbollah, through a front person, 
also from Lebanon, registered an aircraft here in the United States 
with no landing permit. In addition, we had another aircraft registered 
through the FAA through Wells Fargo Bank, which we understand was 
located in Tripoli International Airport in Libya, with no landing 
permit, just hours before the U.N. Security Council met to approve a 
no-fly zone over that country.
  Similarly, we had an aircraft owned by the brother of Ghana's 
president but registered by the Bank of Utah, which mysteriously 
appeared in Tehran, Iran, in 2014, bearing an American flag emblem. 
This occurred, obviously, in the midst of U.S. and international 
sanctions. Prohibiting the travel of U.S. aircraft to Iran was the law 
at that point. The FAA could not explain who was operating the plane or 
who owned it, and the lack of transparency and accountability in the 
FAA's registration system is a serious national security threat.
  Now, there was a time when Democrats and Republicans could work on 
amendments like that and they would

[[Page H3681]]

be accepted. I am still mystified as to where the opposition came from.
  Also, public health and safety demands that the FAA take immediate 
steps to mitigate the impact of concentrated flight paths which come in 
and out of major airports around the country. They have got a new 
system called a NextGen RNAV system that concentrates the flights over 
very narrow strips of neighborhoods and in the areas adjacent to those 
airports. And we can do a lot, Mr. Chairman, to mitigate that damage. 
But that is not in this bill.
  What I am here to talk about is retrofitting aircraft with noise 
mitigation devices known as vortex generators. These devices are 
lightweight and divert wind from the vents on the underside of an 
aircraft's wing to significantly reduce noise during descent. European 
carriers such as Lufthansa, British Airways, and Air France have 
already adapted their older Airbus aircraft with these devices, and new 
models now come equipped with them. My amendment, which is cosponsored 
by several of my colleagues on the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus, 
would ensure that American air carriers are following suit.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and, actually, my 
classmate, Mr. Lynch. You, myself, and Joe Wilson are the last of the 
special election eight that came in 2001, so with me leaving, it will 
just be up to you and Joe Wilson. But I appreciate working with you.
  I appreciate the intent of your amendment. Again, I reluctantly 
oppose it because of my high regard for you and the work you have done 
here. I might add too that what you are talking about, the 
registration--your amendment, I am familiar with it; I think it might 
have had some unintended consequences. But I also believe that what 
they do in Oklahoma City at the registry would put some language in 
this bill to change that process out there. I intend to go out and see 
it firsthand, because there are problems out there with the way they 
operate out there in Oklahoma City. Again, I understand what you are 
talking about.
  But I do rise, reluctantly, to oppose the amendment. The amendment 
would require the FAA to undertake a very unclear task, I believe, 
facilitating opportunities for air carriers to install noise reduction 
devices. If you come onto the House floor with an FAA bill, the number 
one amendment that we have--many, many amendments that we have deal 
with noise. So it is a problem out there. But the air carriers do have 
an incentive to, again, operate and reduce the noise of their aircraft, 
and each new generation of aircraft continues to reduce the noise.
  I know that in Connecticut, I believe, Briggs & Stratton has a 
facility up there, United Technologies, and they were talking about a 
jet engine that will reduce noise by as much as 70 percent. Again, 
technology. A lot of smart people are out there trying to figure out 
innovative ways to reduce noise on these aircraft. Having the FAA 
involved in these air carrier business decisions, I believe, would 
stifle the innovation and would set back that development.
  But again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I am well aware 
of the issue. I at this point would urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  It would direct the FAA to engage and cooperate with airlines to 
identify and facilitate opportunities for them to retrofit their 
aircraft with devices that mitigate noise. Air traffic noise is an 
extremely important issue to those who live in communities surrounding 
our airports. This noise can be destructive to the well-being of the 
residents of these communities. This amendment would go a long way 
toward mitigating future noise issues around our airports.
  I support this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.

                              {time}  1630


                  Amendment No. 88 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 88 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GLOBAL-SCALE PROBABILISTIC CONVECTION GUIDANCE.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall develop global-scale probabilistic convection guidance 
     capability.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple one. The entire 
text reads as follows:

       The FAA Administrator shall develop global-scale 
     probabilistic convection guidance capability.

  In plain English, this means that the FAA would be required to 
develop the capability to predict where convection occurs so that 
aircraft can avoid it, if possible.
  Atmospheric convection is thought to induce a significant proportion 
of turbulence experienced by commercial aircraft, and that turbulence, 
even if only moderate, can lead to passenger and crew injuries and can 
result in high insurance costs for airlines.
  The FAA has been doing a commendable job of developing the capability 
to produce probabilistic forecasts of domestic oceanic convection over 
a 36-hour timeframe, but work remains to be done to improve this 
capability globally.
  The FAA would like to pursue further work in this area and has the 
hope of possibly achieving this capability by the end of 2020. In order 
to support this effort, I believe Congress should fully authorize the 
development of this important capability, and after doing so, it should 
adequately appropriate funds to accomplish the mission. Should this 
amendment pass today, I am committed to fully supporting the FAA's work 
in this arena through my seat on the Appropriations Committee.
  I know we would all like a smooth flight in and out of D.C. each 
week. Let's extend that possibility as often as possible to the 
American public seeking to cross an ocean or other continents on their 
travels. If you want your constituents to have smoother flights, I urge 
you to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this 
amendment, but I do oppose it.
  This amendment would require the FAA to develop a global-scale 
guidance system related to convection activity. The FAA already has 
extensive resources for obtaining necessary weather information for 
safe flight operations, including thunderstorm information, lightning, 
and so on. Additionally, the FAA is currently engaged in such weather-
modeling development and is actively working towards deploying such 
capability in the future.
  However, this amendment will likely require significant budgetary 
resources

[[Page H3682]]

from both the FAA and NOAA, and, unfortunately, the brevity of this 
amendment and the lack of details results in a vague mandate that may 
distract the FAA and NOAA from their ongoing efforts. If the intent is 
to improve forecasting efforts, then let's not distract them from those 
efforts they are currently involved in.
  For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to oppose the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Zeldin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MANDATORY USE OF THE NEW YORK NORTH SHORE HELICOPTER 
                   ROUTE.

       (a) Public Comment Period.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall provide notice of, and an opportunity 
     for, at least 60 days of public comment with respect to the 
     regulations in subpart H of part 93 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (2) Timing.--The public comment period required under 
     paragraph (1) shall begin not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Public Hearing.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall hold a 
     public hearing in the communities impacted by the regulations 
     described in subsection (a)(1) to solicit feedback with 
     respect to the regulations.
       (c) Review.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate a 
     review of the regulations described in subsection (a)(1) that 
     assesses the--
       (1) noise impacts of the regulations for communities, 
     including communities in locations where aircraft are 
     transitioning to or from a destination or point of landing;
       (2) enforcement of applicable flight standards, including 
     requirements for helicopters operating on the relevant route 
     to remain at or above 2,500 feet mean sea level; and
       (3) availability of alternative or supplemental routes to 
     reduce the noise impacts of the regulations, including the 
     institution of an all water route over the Atlantic Ocean.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my bipartisan 
amendment to address the deeply flawed North Shore Helicopter Route, 
which is impacting communities throughout Long Island, especially my 
constituents on the North Fork.
  The FAA's North Shore Helicopter Route, which was made mandatory 
through an FAA bureaucratic edict in 2010, represents everything that 
is wrong with our unaccountable Federal bureaucracy. It lacks fairness, 
transparency, and common sense. It is not a bright idea to mandate 
aircraft traffic bound for the tip of an island to make its transition 
over land when multiple all-water routes which mitigate the noise 
impact are available.
  In addition to being ill-conceived and misguided, what makes this FAA 
mandate so extremely unfair is that it shifts the majority of air 
traffic in the area over Long Island's North Fork, which does not have 
a busy airport or helicopter pad, and, thus, doesn't get any of the 
economic benefit that the air traffic brings to neighboring communities 
on the South Fork that have an active seasonal airport.
  To close these loopholes and address this unfairness, I offer this 
critical amendment that will force the FAA to reassess the North Shore 
Helicopter Route and work on replacing it with a true all-water route 
over the Atlantic Ocean.
  This amendment also requires the FAA to hold public hearings on the 
North Shore Helicopter Route in the communities impacted by this flawed 
route and open up a public comment period so the people who live with 
aircraft noise season after season can have a voice.
  The FAA has, for years, ignored my constituents and the law since 
long before I was even in Congress. By continuing to extend the North 
Shore Helicopter Route through emergency authority, the FAA has been 
waiving the requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act and other 
Federal laws and regulations that require public comment and the 
consultation of the impacted local governments before any major 
regulatory decisions are made.
  I represent a district that is almost completely surrounded by water, 
so it is common sense that aircraft departing New York City bound for 
airports on the East End of Long Island can reduce noise by following 
true all-water routes.
  My amendment also requires the FAA to enforce its own rules regarding 
altitude restrictions for the aircraft following this flawed route. 
This is not just an issue in my district, but also impacts residents 
who are impacted by noise in Nassau County and Queens. That is why I 
have partnered with my Democratic colleagues, Representatives Grace 
Meng and Tom Suozzi, on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
  This amendment directs the FAA Administrator to offer a public 
comment period and public hearing with respect to the New York North 
Shore Helicopter Route and would then be required to review the 
applicable regulations related to the route and assess the noise 
impacts on communities and the availability of alternative or 
supplemental routes to reduce those impacts.
  I oppose it on the grounds that it is really not good policy to 
legislate on noise in a piecemeal fashion, addressing each region and 
each airport one by one. That is not the best way to address air 
traffic noise. The community has been aware of this issue for some time 
and certainly of the occasionally unreasonable exposure to helicopter 
noise reported by residents in urban areas.
  The Aviation Subcommittee held a roundtable on this in October of 
2011 to explore this issue, and perhaps it is time to re-up that 
roundtable to get some movement on this issue.
  Further, I have concern about possible unintended consequences of 
legislative proposals that could lead to the redistribution of aircraft 
noise. Although well-intentioned, such proposals have social justice 
ramifications and often can end up distributing noise over socially 
economically disadvantaged communities. We have to make sure that noise 
is distributed equitably if we are going to make these decisions.
  I would be happy to work, and I think on our side we would be happy 
to work with the gentleman and the cosponsors to try to address these 
concerns by talking directly with the FAA, but I have to oppose taking 
the solution towards a legislative resolution.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, first off, with respect to my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle, it is very important for my constituents 
to have a voice.
  What is important to note here is that this route was extended by the 
FAA, put in the Federal Register, in the middle of a weekend. No one 
told me. No one told any of the local governments. There was no public 
hearing. There were no public comments accepted. Actually, the FAA, in 
this case, went out of their way to ensure that my constituents had 
zero voice whatsoever. That is under the current Federal law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
rise in support of his amendment.
  Again, this amendment does address the concerns of the people on Long 
Island. As the gentleman pointed out, this was put in place without 
public comment, without talking to the folks that live and have to live 
under these

[[Page H3683]]

overflights, so I applaud him for his efforts and commitment to his 
constituents on this issue. Again, he has worked tirelessly for the 
last two Congresses on this issue and been a tremendously effective 
advocate.

  I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership, and I thank him 
for his amendment and encourage Members to support Mr. Zeldin's 
amendment.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of 
this amendment, for doing everything in his power to ensure that my 
constituents have a voice, that they are heard, that they are 
represented, that they are able to provide their public comments, that 
they are allowed to have a hearing with the FAA. It really is very much 
appreciated by the residents of my district.
  And to my colleagues, Congresswoman Grace Meng, Congressman Suozzi, 
for everyone on the other side of the aisle who is showing leadership 
in supporting this effort, it is much appreciated, understanding that 
this was literally jammed through, in the Federal Register, without all 
sorts of not just courtesies provided, but worse, actually muzzling the 
voice of the people that they couldn't even share any--any--of their 
comments whatsoever.
  Summer after summer, the quality of life of East End residents has 
suffered due to the persistent issue of this noise. The FAA and 
Department of Transportation have sole jurisdiction over the aircraft 
routes that have impacted these communities, but from the route's 
planning to its continued use, they have flat out ignored the residents 
directly affected. I am urging all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. STUDY ON DIVERSITY OF CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE OF 
                   FAA.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the 
     diversity of the cybersecurity workforce of the 
     Administration in order to develop recommendations to 
     increase the size, quality, and diversity of such workforce, 
     including cybersecurity researchers and specialists.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     completion of the study conducted under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the results of such study.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
FAA, to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences 
to conduct a study on the diversity of the cybersecurity workforce of 
the FAA in order to develop recommendations to increase the size, 
quality, and diversity of such workforce.
  Every day, Federal departments and agencies across our Nation face a 
barrage of cybersecurity attacks that threaten our national and 
economic security. An attack in 2006 forced the U.S. Federal Aviation 
Administration to shut down one of its air traffic control systems in 
Alaska. Another attack that possibly involved malicious hacking and 
phishing targeted 75 airports in the United States in 2013.
  Now, in recent years, the FAA has taken concrete steps to improve 
cybersecurity protection mechanisms; however, Congress needs to ensure 
that the FAA has the ability and resources to implement cybersecurity 
protocols across all segments of the National Airspace System.
  The mission of the FAA is ``to provide the safest, most efficient 
aerospace system in the world,'' and one of the five values of the 
agency to execute on that mission includes, in their vision statement: 
``People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, 
diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.''

                              {time}  1645

  According to CyberSeek, a national program of National Institute of 
Standards and Technology in the Department of Commerce, in 2017, the 
U.S. employed nearly 800,000 people in cybersecurity positions. 
However, that same report goes on to add that approximately 350,000 
jobs remain open in the cybersecurity space.
  To ensure that FAA continues to safeguard the world's safest and most 
productive aviation sector, Congress needs to ensure that the FAA has 
all of the tools necessary to ready its workforce.
  According to the FAA 2015 Performance and Accountability Report, the 
agency has over 45,000 employees who have diverse educational and 
career backgrounds. So when we look at our air traffic controllers, 
researchers, maintenance specialists, safety inspectors, and mechanical 
and electrical software engineers, innovative solutions to national 
cybersecurity challenges will come from a diversity of perspectives.
  That is why my amendment will study the needs of the existing 
cybersecurity workforce of the FAA, and help identify and address any 
gaps that exist, and ensure that the size, quality, and diversity of 
such workforce at the FAA keep pace with the rapid technological 
advancements in the aviation sector.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio for 
their strength and their leadership. And I want to thank Chairman 
Shuster for his leadership and emphasis on skills development and 
training.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this 
amendment. It is a good amendment. The cybersecurity workforce will 
play a greater role in the aviation industry in the years ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to support Mrs. 
Lawrence's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague on the other side 
of the aisle for his support.
  Our skilled trained workforce is one of the greatest challenges we 
have in America in supplying a workforce that is going to address the 
skilled needs of our workforce. If we don't address it and be 
proactive, it is going to be creating a challenge not only to filling 
jobs, but creating the workforce that will get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
115-650 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 42 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 60 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
  Amendment No. 63 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 78 by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Denham of California.
  Amendment No. 87 by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

[[Page H3684]]

  



                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 223, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               AYES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Gowdy
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1716

  Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Messrs. McHENRY, HILL, GOODLATTE, 
STEWART, BRADY of Texas, COHEN, GOHMERT, and GRAVES of Georgia changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. CORREA, KIHUEN, and 
SERRANO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The Chair advises all 
Members to stay close to the floor. The next series of votes will be a 
2-minute vote. Please stay close to the floor.


              Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 37, 
noes 375, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                                AYES--37

     Aderholt
     Bass
     Beyer
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davidson
     Duncan (SC)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Harris
     Higgins (NY)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Kelly (MS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lieu, Ted
     Lowenthal
     Lynch
     McClintock
     Moolenaar
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Raskin
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Royce (CA)
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Sherman
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--375

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gianforte
     Gibbs

[[Page H3685]]


     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Handel
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     LaHood
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Cicilline
     Costello (PA)
     Gowdy
     Gutierrez
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 157]

                               AYES--172

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Estes (KS)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)

                               NOES--243

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Bacon
     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gianforte
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Krishnamoorthi
     LaHood
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Gowdy
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H3686]]

  


                              {time}  1727

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92, 
noes 323, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 158]

                                AYES--92

     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bonamici
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Cleaver
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Crist
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fortenberry
     Gabbard
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Herrera Beutler
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Raskin
     Rohrabacher
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Vela
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (SC)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--323

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gomez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Handel
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McEachin
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Gowdy
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1732

  Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, Mrs. BEATTY, and Ms. SPEIER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Denham) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 159]

                               AYES--222

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert

[[Page H3687]]


     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)

                               NOES--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Gowdy
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1735

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 227, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 160]

                               AYES--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Black
     Blackburn
     Carson (IN)
     Gowdy
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Noem
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Wilson (FL


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1739

  Mr. EVANS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and 
missed rollcall votes

[[Page H3688]]

155 to 160. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes:
  Rollcall 155, on H.R. 4, DeFazio Amendment, vote ``yea.''
  Rollcall 156, on H.R. 4, Rohrabacher/Bass Amendment, vote ``nay.''
  Rollcall 157, on H.R. 4, S. King Amendment, vote ``nay.''
  Rollcall 158, on H.R. 4, Lipinski Amendment, vote ``yea.''
  Rollcall 159, on H.R. 4, Denha/Costa Amendment, vote ``nay.''
  Rollcall 160, on H.R. 4, Lynch/Meng Amendment, vote ``yea.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, I was not present for the following 
votes because I chose to remain in my congressional district in Miami 
for an important district event.
  Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall Vote No. 
155; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 156; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 157; 
``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 158; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 159; and 
``yes'' on rollcall Vote No. 160.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smucker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4) 
to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________