Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)

[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.

[[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.

{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.

[[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).

[[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.

``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''.....

[[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

____________________