[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 124 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3823-H3839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SECURING GROWTH AND ROBUST LEADERSHIP IN AMERICAN AVIATION ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


            Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rose). It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 48 printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. 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 VIII, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DESIGNATIONS FOR MEAT AND FOOD PROCESSING 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act 
     of 2016 (49 U.S.C. 44802 note) is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) A concentrated animal feeding operation.
       ``(vi) An eligible meat and food processing facility.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Eligible Meat and Food Processing Facility Defined.--
     In this section, the term `eligible meat and food processing 
     facility' means a facility that--
       ``(1) is an establishment operated under Federal meat 
     inspection pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 71 
     et seq.), and--
       ``(A) with respect to cattle, has a slaughter capacity of 
     greater than 500 animals per day; or
       ``(B) with respect to pork and sheep, has a slaughter 
     capacity of greater than 1,000 animals per day;
       ``(2) is an official establishment operated under Federal 
     poultry inspection pursuant to the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 453) and, with respect to poultry, 
     has a slaughter capacity of greater than 10,000 animals per 
     day;
       ``(3) is an official plant operated under Federal egg 
     inspection pursuant to the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 1033) with at least 500,000 laying hens;
       ``(4) is a facility that processes (e.g., washes, grades, 
     packs) shell eggs for the table egg market with at least 
     500,000 laying hens; or
       ``(5) is a facility that manufactures or processes food 
     located in any of the State or Territories and operated under 
     section 415(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 350d(c).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment will help to safeguard the privacy of 
America's farmers and ranchers that work day and night to produce the 
food the world relies on.
  This amendment would give our agricultural producers and food 
processors the opportunity to impose unmanned aircraft restrictions 
around their operations upon a formal request to prevent drones 
unauthorized access to their land.
  In 2016, Congress created a process by which critical infrastructure 
facilities can impose restrictions on drone flights around their 
operations.
  The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency designates the 
food and agriculture sector as a critical infrastructure sector, which 
is so vital to the United States that its success is imperative to our 
national security and our economic security.
  In the event of an emergency situation or disaster, protection of our 
agricultural land across the country is going to be vital.
  Intelligence officials have even gone so far to warn that America's 
agriculture industry has been targeted by suspicious drone activity, 
potentially by domestic terrorists or other bad actors.
  Food security is national security, plain and simple.
  This amendment would ensure that we give our farmers, ranchers, and 
food producers the same ability to restrict the use of drones around 
these facilities that we give to amusement parks, outdoor facilities, 
and a variety of other interests that do not have similar national 
security implications.
  Mr. Chair, I urge every Member in this body to support my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment would add animal feeding 
operations and meat and food processing facilities to a growing list of 
sites over which the FAA will restrict drone flights.
  These restrictions that currently exist are intended to be used for 
facilities where overhead drone activity would present a potential 
public safety and security concern--critical infrastructures like 
energy and oil facilities and State prisons.
  There is no practical reason why animal agriculture facilities should 
qualify for this kind of restriction, particularly when having that 
restriction might endanger energy and oil facilities. These facilities 
do not involve sensitive or potentially hazardous operations as energy 
and oil facilities and State prisons do.
  These restrictions already exist to ensure the safety of such 
facilities, facility workers, and the public.
  The designation is not intended to be used to inhibit First Amendment 
rights, protect intellectual property, or help facilities avoid 
accountability.
  Allowing such exceptions is a slippery slope in restricting First 
Amendment rights as the national airspace is public space.
  This would delay FAA rulemaking to create these public safety 
restrictions by several months or years, sacrificing public safety to 
shield meat processing facilities and possibly endangering time that 
could better be spent with energy and oil facilities and State prisons.
  I urge Members to side with public safety, energy and oil facilities, 
and

[[Page H3824]]

State prisons and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I will point out that this amendment 
is structured and written in such a way that this does not apply to all 
agricultural and food production facilities. It only applies to the 
very few largest operations in the United States, the ones that, in 
fact, supply 80 percent of the food production in this country.
  There is a national security risk here. We talk at length in this 
Chamber all the time about how agriculture is becoming a national 
security issue.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all of the Members in the House to vote for 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I will close in reciting the previous argument 
that this is not about protecting public safety and that First 
Amendment rights would be violated.
  I looked back to see my crowd here, to see how we would win this 
voice vote, and it looks very daunting. I feel a little bit like Davy 
Crockett at the Alamo. Nevertheless, I continue to voice my opposition, 
and I ask my colleagues who are here to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Kean of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. 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 VIII, add the following:

     SEC. ____. AIR STATISTIC REPORTS.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall ensure that 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics revises and maintains 
     Technical Reporting Directive No. 31 (14 C.F.R. Part 234) to 
     provide that the following events are not included within the 
     air carrier codes specified in such Directive:
       (1) Aircraft cleaning necessitated by such incidents as the 
     death of a passenger, excessive bleeding, service animal 
     (SVAN) soiling, and extensive debris left by customers.
       (2) Aircraft damage caused by extreme weather, bird strike, 
     foreign object debris (FOD), sabotage, and other similar 
     causes.
       (3) Awaiting the arrival of connecting passengers or crew 
     due to weather or local or National Airspace System 
     logistics.
       (4) Awaiting the results of an unexpected alcohol test of a 
     crewmember caused by the suspicion or accusation of a 
     customer.
       (5) Awaiting gate space due to congestion not within the 
     carrier's control, including the utilization of common gates 
     or uncontrollable gate returns resulting from constraints of 
     the National Airspace System.
       (6) A baggage or cargo loading delay caused by an outage of 
     a bag system not controlled by a carrier, including wind 
     affecting ramp conditions, late connecting bags resulting 
     from an air traffic controller delay, airport infrastructure 
     failure, and similar causes.
       (7) Cabin servicing or catering delays due to weather or 
     wind.
       (8) Vendor computer outages, cybersecurity attacks 
     (provided that the carrier is in compliance with applicable 
     cybersecurity regulations), or issues related to the use of 
     airport-supplied communications equipment (such as common-use 
     gates and terminals, power outage, and lighting).
       (9) Availability of crew related to hours flown, rest 
     periods, and on-duty times not caused by a carrier, including 
     a delay of a crew replacement or reserve necessitated by a 
     non-controllable event, and pilot or flight attendant rest 
     related to weather, air traffic controller, or local 
     logistics.
       (10) An unscheduled engineering or safety inspection.
       (11) Public health issues.
       (12) Fueling delays related to weather or airport fueling 
     infrastructure issues, including the inoperability of a fuel 
     farm or unusable fuel which does not meet specified 
     requirements at delivery to an airport due to contamination 
     in the supply chain.
       (13) Government systems that are inoperable or otherwise 
     unable to receive forms which have been properly completed by 
     an air carrier.
       (14) Overheated brakes resulting from a safety incident, 
     including those resulting from emergency procedures.
       (15) Mail from the U.S. Postal Service that was delayed in 
     arrival.
       (16) Unscheduled maintenance, including airworthiness 
     issues manifesting outside a scheduled maintenance program 
     and that cannot be deferred or must be addressed before 
     flight.
       (17) A medical emergency.
       (18) Positive passenger bag match flags that require 
     removal of a bag in order to ensure security.
       (19) The removal of an unruly passenger.
       (20) Ramp service from a third-party contractor, including 
     servicing of potable water, lavatory servicing, and shortage 
     of third-party ramp equipment.
       (21) Snow removal or aircraft de-icing due to the 
     occurrence of extreme weather despite adequate carrier 
     resources, or the removal of snow on ramps.
       (22) An airport closure due to such factors as the presence 
     of volcanic ash, wind or wind shear.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Kean) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, today, pursuant to the authority 
from Congress, the Department of Transportation requires airlines to 
report delayed or canceled flights. The rules also require a cause to 
be listed for the cancellation and delay. Every cancellation or delay 
must fall into a category of causes, one of which is air carrier.
  In practice, many causes of cancellations and delays outside an air 
carrier's control end up in this category. In effect, it has become a 
catchall category. This is a problem because without good data 
reflecting the causes of cancellations and delays, it is impossible to 
identify the root causes. If you can't identify the real problems, you 
can't, as a Member of Congress or a policymaker, craft a good policy 
solution.
  This amendment would require the Secretary to refine the reporting 
directives to provide more detailed information about the cause of a 
cancellation or delay, rather than simply dumping them all into a 
catchall category.
  It builds upon the committee's acknowledgment of this obvious problem 
in section 716 of the bill and is simply a more robust effort to 
address it.
  Any event listed in this amendment such as weather damage, 
unscheduled safety inspections, volcanic ash, or public health issues 
would no longer be categorized as carrier-caused.
  The mischaracterization of causes endemic to the current system is 
fixable, and we should take this opportunity to fix it.
  If adopted, this amendment will result in greater transparency to the 
traveling public regarding the cause of a canceled or delayed flight. 
Better data will allow the Secretary and airlines to develop strategies 
to mitigate their true causes.
  This amendment simply attempts to make sure the Department of 
Transportation and the FAA are gathering more accurate descriptions of 
the causes of a canceled or delayed flight, and in turn, will allow the 
FAA and the airlines to better inform their decisions moving forward.
  Just today, the FAA's effort to explain the cause of major day-to-day 
issues in real time were reported in various news sources.
  My amendment will support this goal by improving the data that goes 
into the system for explaining the causes of delays and cancellations.
  I share the FAA's goal of providing better data and more 
transparency, and this amendment will help provide them with the data 
they need to identify and to fix the problems that we have all been 
experiencing through air travel.
  Finally, I thank Representative Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon and 
Representative Larson of Connecticut for their bipartisan support and 
for joining me in offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment offered by Representative Kean, not as an individual from 
District 9 but as the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee being 
given certain responsibilities for that position.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have seen a spike in the 
number of

[[Page H3825]]

mass flight cancellations and significant delay events. Some of these 
events were not completely attributable to the airlines.
  The acceleration of the number of worker retirements during the 
height of the pandemic affected every industry's workforce, and many of 
the airlines were understandably not prepared for the massive increase 
in air travel demand as the effects of the pandemic started to 
dissipate.
  This led to the rise in significant delays and cancellations that 
have affected passengers over the last several years.
  This also underscores the importance of the Department of 
Transportation accurately reporting the on-time performance of flight 
delays and cancellations so consumers will have a full and accurate 
picture of what to expect when traveling.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would restrict airline service quality 
performance reporting by removing a host of critical reporting 
elements.
  For example, the amendment would remove airlines' requirements to 
report delays due to vendor computer outages, including cybersecurity 
attacks. I know I would like that to continue to be reported, and I 
assume most of my colleagues would, as well.
  This amendment would also remove airlines' requirements to report 
delays due to crew availability related to hours flown, rest periods, 
and on-duty times not caused by a carrier. This is something Federal 
regulators need to understand in order to make effective policy.
  Further, this amendment will move airlines' requirements to report 
delays due to an unscheduled engineering or safety inspection. Again, I 
want to know when this happens because this is potentially critical 
information to inform an airline safety management system and can help 
the FAA understand whether the safety management system is working 
effectively.
  The amendment would also remove the reporting of public health issues 
so airlines wouldn't need to report delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
or other pandemics in the future.
  That kind of data helps both Congress and the public health officials 
take measured and appropriate action to potentially help airlines in 
times of financial need.
  Accurate and comprehensive data is critical to helping this Congress 
and the Department of Transportation make good policy and take 
appropriate action.
  It helps us to take informed steps to improve the passenger 
experience, identify root causes for trends and delays, hold airlines 
accountable for what is in their control, and target fixes elsewhere 
for things outside of the airlines' control. This amendment would 
significantly reduce the granularity of data collected.
  While I am happy to work with Representative Kean to determine a fair 
and reasonable way to report airline statistics regarding significant 
delays and cancellations, I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this amendment, 
which is bipartisan in nature, actually increases the scope of 
transparency and ensures that the traveling public, that the 
policymakers, and we as Members of Congress have a better knowledge and 
understanding of what is happening and what is causing delays on a 
real-time basis, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I reiterate my opposition. I urge a ``no'' 
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kean).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1530


                Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. LaMALFA. 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 VIII, add the following:

     SEC. __. WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION.

       (a) In General.--To ensure that sufficient firefighting 
     resources are available to suppress wildfires and protect 
     public safety and property, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law or agency regulation, not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     promulgate an interim final rule under which--
       (1) an operation described in section 21.25(b)(7) of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall allow for the 
     transport of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire 
     to perform ground wildfire suppression and designate the 
     firefighters conducting such an operation as essential 
     crewmembers on board a covered aircraft operated on a mission 
     to suppress wildfire;
       (2) the aircraft maintenance, inspections, and pilot 
     training requirements under part 135 of such title 14 may 
     apply to such an operation, if determined by the 
     Administrator to be necessary to maintain the safety of 
     firefighters carrying out wildfire suppression missions; and
       (3) the noise standards described in part 36 of such title 
     14 shall not apply to such an operation.
       (b) Surplus Military Aircraft.--In promulgating any rule 
     under subsection (a), the Administrator shall not enable any 
     aircraft of a type that has been manufactured in accordance 
     with the requirements of and accepted for use by any branch 
     of the United States Military and has been later modified to 
     be used for wildfire suppression operations, unless such 
     aircraft is later type-rated by the Administrator.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to FAA Documents.--In 
     promulgating an interim final rule under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator shall amend FAA Order 8110.56, Restricted 
     Category Type Certification (dated February 27, 2006), as 
     well as any corresponding policy or guidance material, to 
     reflect the requirements of subsection (a).
       (d) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the Administrator's authority to take 
     action otherwise authorized by law to protect aviation safety 
     or passenger safety.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered aircraft.--The term ``covered aircraft'' means 
     an aircraft type-certificated in the restricted category 
     under section 21.25 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     used for transporting firefighters to and from the site of a 
     wildfire in order to perform ground wildfire suppression for 
     the purpose of extinguishing a wildfire on behalf of, or 
     pursuant to a contract with, a Federal, State, or local 
     government agency.
       (2) Firefighters.--The term ``firefighters'' means a 
     trained fire suppression professional the transport of whom 
     is necessary to accomplish a wildfire suppression operation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I think is going 
to be loved by both sides of the room here today since it makes so much 
sense.
  The situation we have is, it will fix an issue under the FAA 
regulations that currently prevents a privately owned, restricted 
category aircraft that is already performing a wildfire suppression 
operation from transporting firefighters to a scene.
  Now, if this exact same aircraft were owned by a public entity such 
as the Forest Service, BLM, et cetera, that aircraft would be allowed 
to transport firefighters while performing a wildfire suppression 
operation. Even more egregious is the fact that if this government 
agency were to decide to lease this private aircraft for 90 days or 
more, that would magically transform it into the type of aircraft that 
would be allowed to transport firefighters on the way to a suppression 
action.
  Under the current guidelines, however, they are not allowed to do so. 
This would either force contractors to have to get 90 days or longer 
leases with entities that may not want the aircraft for 90 days or be 
able to afford that. This may be a small local entity, local 
government.
  What we are doing is allowing some flexibility here to not be locked 
into 90-day aircraft contracts that aren't needed and, at the same 
time, prevent unneeded ferrying back and forth, one for fire 
suppression activities and then another one to transport the personnel

[[Page H3826]]

when it would be perfectly logical to transport them on the same trip, 
saving fuel, saving wear and tear on the aircraft and the people, and 
even a little extra unneeded pollution in the air from running the 
aircraft, right?
  My amendment requires the FAA to move forward with allowing private 
aircraft to also transport firefighters when they are fighting 
wildfires. The current policy is an unnecessary barrier to being able 
to deploy and fully utilize the capabilities of existing wildfire 
contractors for wildfire suppression.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, which directs the 
FAA to issue an interim final rule to allow restricted category 
aircraft to be used to transport firefighters to and from wildfire 
sites and other conforming changes.
  While I support the intent of helping firefighters, this amendment is 
not the way to do it. In fact, if we are talking about firefighters, a 
firefighter lost his life in Memphis today fighting a fire. Several 
were injured, and we hope they will recover quickly. It is a difficult 
profession.
  Restricted category aircraft are certified by the FAA for only very 
specific types of missions. Many of them are aircraft specifically 
built for military operations.
  This amendment would create a shortcut for manufacturers interested 
in selling aircraft. However, the aircraft are not certified to the 
safety standards needed to carry passengers. This is an attempt by one 
manufacturer to create a domestic market for its aircraft without going 
through the FAA safety certification process. That is just not cricket.
  Furthermore, interim final rules are only issued in situations where 
a regulatory process or requirement is clearly and directly creating a 
safety or security hazard.
  There are multiple paths for this aircraft to be put to good use in 
helping firefighters, and manufacturers should follow those processes.
  Congress should not be writing safety loopholes for companies to sell 
aircraft that potentially put our Nation's firefighters at risk. I 
stand with our firefighters.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am really wounded by that because the 
logic just isn't there. What we are talking about is an aircraft that 
is fully certified. If it was under a 90-day or longer contract, 
everybody would be hunky-dory with it. It would be perfectly kosher.
  However, in this situation here, since it doesn't have that long of a 
contract, it is not now considered a public aircraft. It meets all the 
standards for safety, for transporting personnel as well as 
transporting the products with which they will be putting out the fire.
  I am just mystified as to the logic of why we can't do this. It will 
save sorties. It will save a lot of unneeded pain. It will also allow 
local entities to be able to afford to keep these aircraft around 
because they are not going to be locked into 90-day contracts. I am 
just at a loss as to why this couldn't be agreed to by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, let me put my colleague's mind at rest. I don't 
intend to call for a roll call. I will oppose the amendment, but I do 
not intend to call for a roll call.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment of my colleague 
from Tennessee. He mentioned a while ago with Mr. Issa ``40-love,'' so 
I will pick up on the ``love'' part of that and say that this is a 
friendlier discussion.
  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. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 60 will 
not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 61 will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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:

       Strike section 772 of the bill.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment many 
times over the last 15 years because until we can cut this poster child 
for government waste, I despair of us ever being able to bring Federal 
spending under control.
  They call it Essential Air Service, but it is the least essential 
program in the entire U.S. Government. This is a direct subsidy paid to 
airline companies to fly empty and near-empty planes from small 
airports to regional hubs.
  This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local 
communities and airports to adjust to airline deregulation in 1978, 45 
years ago. Instead, it has grown to include 111 airports in a program 
that has doubled in cost in the last decade.
  I emphasize that this program has nothing to do with emergency 
medical evacuations. It solely subsidizes regular, scheduled, 
commercial service that is so seldom used that it cannot support 
itself. Why can't it? Because in many cases, the small airports in the 
program are less than an hour's drive from regional airports.
  Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced Airport near my 
district in the Sierra Nevada of California, yet Merced is less than an 
hour's drive from Fresno Airport, offering scheduled flights throughout 
the West.
  Subsidized service is available from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, just 31 
miles from Harrisburg International Airport. Subsidized flights from 
Pueblo, Colorado, are just a 45-minute drive from Colorado Springs 
Airport, and on and on.
  There is supposed to be a $200 cap on the subsidy and a minimum of 10 
passengers per day, yet 55 airports are able to waive these 
requirements, and they have all been granted. Per-passenger subsidies 
on some flights are now nearly $1,000 per passenger. By comparison, you 
can charter a small plane for around $150 to $200 an hour. Currently, 
42 of the 111 flights subsidized are for flights of 9 people or less. 
These flights of 9 or less are still costing the taxpayers over $120 
million in fiscal year 2023.
  Over the next few years, this program will cost taxpayers over a 
billion dollars in direct appropriations, which this amendment would 
cease. The program is receiving $390 million in subsidies this year.
  If a route cannot generate enough passengers to support its costs, 
the passengers themselves are telling us it is not worth the money to 
them. Maybe we should listen to them.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), chair of the full committee.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this amendment and urge Members to vote ``no.''
  The Essential Air Service program has proven to be a vital tool for 
rural connectivity, and for decades, it has been providing commercial 
air service to rural America.
  It ensures our constituents in rural communities are connected to the 
national air transportation system and provides businesses across the 
country with the opportunity to grow their

[[Page H3827]]

businesses and families easier access to loved ones across the Nation. 
It drives economic development in many of our districts.
  This amendment most certainly eliminates air service to our smallest, 
most rural communities. I have been a longtime, strong supporter of the 
EAS program.
  In order to ensure the program's long-term viability, smart and 
targeted reforms are needed to ensure the program can continue to serve 
our communities.
  Those reforms are in this underlying bill. It phases in cost-saving 
reforms to secure the program's long-term stability and ensures that it 
will continue to meet the needs of communities served while reining in 
the ballooning costs.
  I, myself, have an EAS airport in my district that will be subject to 
the cost-share provision beginning in fiscal year 2027. I fear that 
without reducing costs, the entire program will cease to exist in due 
time, thanks to the program's cost.
  Let's do anything we can to attempt to save this program. I think 
anything that we do if we are not attempting to save this program is 
literally a disservice to our constituents. Please vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, reform, not repeal is what we should be looking 
for. Essential Air Service is a critical transportation lifeline for 
many rural communities. It was put in place to guarantee small 
communities maintain a minimum level of air service.
  The most important State is Alaska, where the majority of surface 
transportation is not passable year-round. Alaskans rely heavily on air 
travel to stay connected. This would be an economic disaster for the 
State. There are currently approximately 60 communities in Alaska 
alone, and another 110 in the lower 48, that depend on service through 
EAS.
  As a friend of  Don Young, Mary Peltola, and the Alaskan people, I 
ask Members to vote ``no'' and to continue EAS service to the people of 
Alaska and others in rural areas that need it. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this is a nearly 50-year-old temporary 
program. It is indicative of everything in Washington: Nothing ever 
dies here. We just spend more and more money.
  The DOT literally picks winners and losers, where neighboring 
airports have to compete against the Federal Government, which 
subsidizes routes for the very same market. Approved subsidies include 
funding leisure routes. That is not essential. That is leisure.
  Flights on EAS routes are relatively empty compared to nonsubsidized 
flights, and the obvious outcome of subsidizing these routes is that 
they are not economically viable. That is why they are subsidized. It 
is because nobody really needs them. There are other options that are 
reasonable.
  The industry continues to suffer from a pilot shortage, a mechanic 
shortage, labor all across the board, ATC, et cetera. All we are doing 
is making it worse by misallocating these resources.
  Pilots are flying planes to places where there aren't any customers, 
and they are canceling routes where people need to fly.
  The bill does make significant improvements. However, the program 
remains inherently unfair and represents a significant misallocation of 
resources at a time when we can ill afford to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I respect the intent of the author of this amendment, Mr. McClintock, 
who I respect very much. I agree with his desire to cut wasteful 
government programs, but we have a fundamental disagreement on the 
value of this program.
  Speaking for my community, and I do represent Lancaster Airport, this 
service allows my constituents to connect with Pittsburgh and other 
major airports where they can link with routes to take them across the 
country.
  Every dollar invested into the program yields a great return. 
Lancaster Airport is the third busiest airport in Pennsylvania, behind 
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This is an important link to keep it a 
strong commercial hub and to service our community.
  EAS also serves 172 airports across the country. If this amendment 
gets adopted, many of those communities would lose their airports. 
Losing EAS eligibility would not only disconnect communities in rural 
areas from the national air service, but it would also have a ripple 
economic effect.
  Again, I commend the author of this, and I commend the chairman for 
the changes that have been made to this program. It is important that 
we keep it.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment from 
the distinguished gentleman from California.
  Rural districts like the one I represent often get written off as 
``flyover country.'' Essential Air Service, or EAS, ensures that 
``flyover country'' is just a saying and is not a reality.
  As I have mentioned before, Minnesota's Eighth District is the most 
beautiful place in the world. Just take a flight to International 
Falls, Minnesota, and check out Voyageurs National Park, or fly to 
Brainerd and recreate in one of the many beautiful family-owned 
resorts. Fly to Bemidji and see beautiful Lake Bemidji, or take a 
flight to Hibbing, Minnesota, and fly over the biggest mining country 
that we have. None of this would be possible without EAS.
  For most in Minnesota's Eighth District, getting down to Minneapolis 
Airport can be a real challenge. The EAS airports in my district 
provide an opportunity for my rural constituents to quickly, 
conveniently, and safely connect with the rest of this Nation and the 
world.
  I want the constituents that I represent to have access to air travel 
just like everyone else, not be punished because we live in rural 
America.
  My constituents matter. Our local economies and our local airports 
matter, and rural America matters.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Graves promised us reforms. Well, 
we have been hearing those promises for the last 15 years that I have 
been bringing these amendments up, and they never happen.
  My Republican colleagues love to campaign for economies in 
government. Yet, when the easiest possible economy in government is 
presented to them, they can't bear it.
  I would pose this question: Why should the taxpayers of every 
community in America pay for the tickets for their subsidized air 
service when those airports are often less than an hour's drive from a 
regional airport?
  If their customers aren't willing to pay for those tickets, why 
should the people of our districts be required to pay for them through 
their taxes?
  It is time that Republicans kept their promises and started making 
the fundamental reforms that are necessary to bring spending under 
control before we bankrupt this government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I would inquire how much time 
remains in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, our Nation has always had a 
national commitment to infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, that has been true 
whether it has been the interstate highway system, universal telephone 
service, or rural electrification.
  We don't ask each rural county to pay exclusively for their portion 
of the interstate or high voltage transmission line that resides within 
their county borders. That, sir, would be absurd. These are assets with 
national benefit.
  Now, that is the same wisdom, thankfully, that we apply to our 
national aviation infrastructure. That

[[Page H3828]]

does not mean an airport everywhere, of course; not any more than it 
means an interstate everywhere. It does mean a national commitment to 
having the essential infrastructure necessary to bind together 50 
States into one unified America.
  This amendment destroys that national commitment to infrastructure 
and to essential air service. It is misguided, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  I will close, Mr. Chair, by noting this: There may be some airports 
within an hour, but there are many, including in South Dakota, that are 
2 hours or 3 hours away from these hubs.
  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. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. 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 California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. 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 VIII, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FLIGHT 
                   RECORDS.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing the flight 
     records of the Secretary of Transportation for any flight on 
     an aircraft owned by the Federal Aviation Administration for 
     the 3 years preceding the date of enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment.
  Secretary Buttigieg and President Biden's policies have created chaos 
within the FAA. Under the Biden administration, we saw the first full 
ground stoppage of all flights since September 11.
  Taxpayers deserve to know where Secretary Pete was jetting off to on 
a private jet while our constituents were dealing with canceled and 
delayed flights. My amendment will force the FAA to hand over the 
flight logs for the Transportation Secretary's private FAA jet from the 
last 3 years.
  The Washington Post reported that Secretary Buttigieg took 18 secret 
taxpayer-funded private flights. Taxpayers deserve transparency and 
oversight.
  I urge my colleagues to support transparency for the Secretary's 
private flights and adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I respectfully claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this would require the FAA to submit a 
report on flight records for the Secretary of Transportation for the 
previous years. Obviously, as the gentlewoman indicated, it is about 
Secretary Buttigieg who, I think, has done an outstanding job as our 
Secretary.
  This amendment provides no benefit to the FAA. They already know 
where he has been going, and it would be a waste of the 
administration's limited time and resources.
  In fact, there is no reason to think that his flights haven't been 
for reasons that benefit the United States and the Department of 
Transportation.
  Now, if the amendment was something about Senators leaving their 
States during emergency climate events and going to Acapulco, or to 
wherever it was in Mexico, I could agree to it, maybe. But that is not 
what it is about.
  There is no basis as to why this report should be needed. There are 
many pressing issues the FAA should dedicate its attention toward in 
this reauthorization, and the gentlewoman's amendment would detract 
from those efforts.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which has 
no basis in fact concerning anything Secretary Buttigieg may have done 
in any way improper.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, it was Cancun I was trying to think of. So 
if the amendment dealt with Cancun when Texas was having a climate 
emergency, that is a different situation, and people might need to know 
about that.
  But Secretary Buttigieg, there is no reason to think he has done 
anything wrong whatsoever, so there is no basis behind this amendment, 
no fact basis. It is just conjuring up something, and that is why I 
continue to oppose the amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment because it would be a 
waste of FAA time, and it is certainly something that is intended to 
sully the name of our distinguished Secretary of Transportation who has 
done an outstanding job.
  I think the time that the airlines were closed down was because of 
the modems. It didn't have anything to do with the Secretary of 
Transportation, or even the FAA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. 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 subtitle C of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. ___. RESTRICTION ON DEI OFFICIALS.

       None of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to hire any diversity, equity, and inclusion officials or 
     conduct training on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment. Secretary Buttigieg and President Biden's DEI initiatives 
which hire and promote people based on their physical characteristics 
over their merits and qualifications violate Title VII and the 
Constitution.
  In critical public safety roles such as air traffic control, it is 
essential to have the best possible candidate based strictly on 
professional qualifications and merit. Efforts by the Biden 
administration to factor race, gender, and sexual orientation into 
hiring and promotion decisions puts the traveling public at risk and 
deepens the staffing shortages we have seen throughout the FAA.
  Under this administration, we saw the first national ground stoppage 
since September 11. My constituents regularly face delays caused by 
shortages in air traffic control staffing, delays that I am sure many 
of my colleagues have also experienced.
  We must roll back the Biden administration's woke DEI policies and 
put the needs of our public aviation system before the far left's 
political agenda.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3829]]

  

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this amendment which 
prohibits funds from this Act being used to hire any diversity, equity, 
and inclusion officials or conduct DEI training is unnecessary, 
inappropriate, and failing our system.
  It is interesting that it follows the amendment that would look into 
and suggest that Secretary Buttigieg has done something wrong.
  As our Nation works toward long-term economic recovery, it is 
critical the educational and career opportunities in the aerospace 
industry be available and accessible to all Americans. It doesn't say 
that people who aren't the most qualified would get hired. DEI just 
says people would get opportunities which they may not have had in the 
past, and there might be systems in place that do not allow people who 
are diverse, who need to be included, inclusive, and gives them an 
opportunity and equitably get the job just because of their appearance. 
It means that they don't get discriminated against.
  The U.S. aerospace industry is taking initial steps to diversify its 
workforce through the creation of flight training academies, 
apprenticeships, and other career pathway programs, but more can be 
done.
  The underlying bill robustly invests in the FAA's aviation workforce 
development programs to support the education and recruitment of 
aviation jobs, including for communities underrepresented in the 
aviation industry.
  I represent the Ninth Congressional District in Tennessee, which is a 
minority-majority district. A lot of minorities are not in aviation 
jobs. They can perform those jobs and do great jobs, they just haven't 
been given the opportunity over the years, and they need to have 
opportunities to see that this is a place that they can look to to be a 
pilot and to earn a good living and to have a good job. DEI programs 
would help.
  This amendment ties the hands of the FAA and its outgoing 
educational, recruiting, and retention plans by prohibiting the hiring 
of a DEI officer or conducting DEI training, regardless of whether the 
FAA believes that this will result in the best possible results for the 
aviation workforce.
  Again, I oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and hope that 
all Americans can have an opportunity to get good-paying jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I would just continue to urge a ``no'' vote. 
You don't have to be woke. You just don't have to be asleep.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. 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 gentlewoman from Illinois 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1600


               Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Obernolte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. 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 129, after line 25, insert the following:
       (7) Put in place a system that ensures available resources 
     so that applicants can schedule airman practical tests not 
     more than 14 calendar days after requested.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Obernolte) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, the FAA is responsible for administrating 
and certifying pilots in the United States. The certification of these 
pilots takes place in the form of written tests administered at a test 
center, but also in the form of practical tests that are usually 
administered in an aircraft or in a simulator.
  These practical tests are conducted by either FAA examiners or, more 
usually, designated pilot examiners. This is a system that has worked 
well for decades, but a recent problem has arisen where pilots who are 
applying for certification, who need practical tests are encountering 
large and unacceptable delays in the scheduling of those tests.
  In fact, some of the pilots that I have spoken to in the preparation 
of this amendment had to wait over 12 months for the scheduling of a 
practical test. I think we can all agree that that is unacceptable.
  It is not fair to the airmen, it is not fair to the FAA, it is not 
fair to the pilot community, and it is detrimental to the advancement 
of the aviation industry.
  This amendment is a very simple fix to that problem: It would direct 
the FAA to implement an accountability program to ensure that no 
applicant has to wait more than 2 weeks for the administration of a 
practical test.
  I think this is a commonsense solution. It works for the FAA and for 
the applicants, and I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which 
requires the FAA to ensure that pilots can schedule a practical test 
within 14 calendar days of requesting a test.
  What this amendment fails to consider is that the FAA does not 
schedule these tests. These are independent individuals who have 
decided to take on this responsibility as a personal choice. They work 
around their own schedules--birthday parties, weddings, and doctors' 
appointments.
  This amendment would actually add additional bureaucracy and would, 
therefore, be counterproductive and an administrative nightmare.
  Moreover, the underlying bill contains several provisions to assist 
with expediting pilot certification. For instance, the base language 
already increases accountability and transparency for scheduling these 
tests and even includes a web-based scheduling tool to assist pilots.
  The committee developed a solution on a bipartisan basis to help with 
this specific problem of delays in pilot testing. Therefore, I oppose 
this counterproductive and burdensome amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I would strongly object to the 
characterization of this amendment as burdensome. If you want an 
example of burdensome, think about a student pilot who has applied to 
get their pilot's license.
  Mr. Chair, I have been a certified flight instructor for almost 30 
years. This is a situation that I have experienced. When you are a 
student pilot, you don't know exactly when you are going to reach the 
level of proficiency required by the Federal aviation regulations, so 
you train and you train and you train and you sweat and you work, and 
finally your instructor says you are ready to take the test.
  Now, imagine a student in that position applying for a test and being 
told it is going to be months before they can be examined.
  Mr. Chair, I can tell you from personal experience that flight 
proficiency is a perishable commodity. You cannot go several months 
without flying, hop into a cockpit, and expect to be at the same level 
of proficiency that you were.
  We are adding burdensome regulation on our student pilots when we 
expect them to maintain their proficiency for however long it takes the 
FAA to schedule that exam.
  To be clear, this amendment does not direct the FAA to make its 
inspectors available; it directs the FAA to make the resources 
available to implement an accountability program to make sure we have a 
sufficient number of pilot examiners to make this situation better.
  Two weeks is an industry standard consensus. The FAA has agreed that

[[Page H3830]]

that is a reasonable period of time. This just makes sense.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, for the party that eschews 
regulations, we now have more regulations being proposed, and these 
regulations are unnecessary in this case.
  Again, it is up to the particular applicant to schedule the test for 
themselves. If they delay in doing so, then, of course, why would we 
want to punish the Federal Government by forcing the Federal Government 
to offer them a test in 14 days that they could have scheduled 
themselves had they been more efficient with their scheduling?
  Let's continue to rely on personal responsibility in this regard, and 
let's make sure that the onus remains on the applicant to schedule the 
testing.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, to be clear: This is not a scheduling problem on the part 
of the applicant. The applicant doesn't know exactly when they are 
going to be ready. The applicant doesn't know when the weather is going 
to cooperate. Particularly for the base level of pilots' licenses, you 
need good weather to be able to take the test.
  This is just talking about the amount of time after an applicant says 
I am ready before which a designated pilot examiner can administer that 
exam. I think we can all agree that that should not be a year.

  This is a commonsense amendment that would solve that problem, and I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an app on my phone and I 
can look out for at least 10 days and determine what the weather will 
be projected to be in a particular location. That technology is 
available to all. All should use it, particularly those who are looking 
to fly the public or fly themselves or their families. They are charged 
with personal responsibility to make sure that they schedule a test in 
accordance with their own particular schedule. Their schedule is up to 
them.
  We need to allow the FAA to work within its means to schedule testing 
on a first-come-first-served basis, and it is up to the applicant to 
make sure they get in where they fit in.
  Mr. Chair, I 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 California (Mr. Obernolte).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Obernolte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I have a further amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 309, line 14, strike ``or''.
       Page 309, line 18, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 309, after line 18, insert the following:
       (4) prevent an airport or any retail fuel seller at such 
     airport from making available for purchase and resale an 
     unleaded aviation gasoline that has been approved by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and has an industry consensus 
     standard for use in lieu of leaded aviation gasoline if such 
     unleaded aviation gasoline is certified for use in all 
     aircraft spark ignition piston engine models.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Obernolte) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, aviation fuel is one of the few fuels 
remaining that still contains lead. It has been universally 
acknowledged that lead is not good for our environment. It is not good 
for our children. It is not good for human ingestion. It causes serious 
health problems.
  The industry has conducted a decades-long study and process to try to 
develop an alternative fuel that takes the lead out of aviation fuel. 
However, this has become a very, very troublesome and difficult task 
because the only suitable solutions would have to be suitable for all 
types of aviation engines and some aircraft feature engines that are 
higher horsepower and higher compression that depend on the presence of 
lead to be able to operate safely.
  Finally, we are approaching a consensus standard on an unleaded 
replacement for aviation gas; however, there is a problem that has 
arisen. Airports accept grant funds from the Airport Improvement 
Program, and in return, they give the FAA grant assurances that they 
will keep their airports open.
  In 2018, when FAA was reauthorized, it was agreed by this body that 
an airport should not be able to withdraw the sale of fuel completely 
and that that would be a violation of its FAA AIP grant assurances.
  I think that that is still true, and I hope we all still feel that 
way. However, most airports only have a single infrastructure for the 
delivery of avgas. If an airport seeks to switch from this current 
standard, which is 100 low lead to an unleaded replacement, a question 
has arisen as to whether or not that would be a violation of its grant 
assurances.
  This amendment clarifies that situation and states that when an 
industry standard consensus fuel emerges that it is not a violation of 
grant assurance for an airport to switch from leaded aviation fuel to 
unleaded aviation fuel.
  I think that this protects the interests of our airports, of our 
pilot community, and also protects our environment at the same time.
  Mr. Chair, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, aviation is the only segment of 
transportation still using leaded fuels. The health impacts of leaded 
fuels are well-documented up to this point and the aviation industry 
writ large has been making a good-faith effort to transition to 
unleaded fuels.
  The FAA closely regulates the availability of fuels at public 
airports because it is a critical element to flight safety.
  The underlying bill text, as well as the manager's amendment offered 
by Chairman Graves and the ranking member, clarifies the fuel 
availability requirements at airports in line with the aviation 
industry timeline for transitioning away from leaded fuels.
  This amendment is confusingly written, and it is unnecessary. Unlike 
what the summary claims, it would reduce airports' flexibility to meet 
the FAA's requirements for fuel availability. Specifically, it would 
narrow the types of unleaded fuels that airports are required to 
provide under the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge all Members to do the 
same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I hope there has been no confusion here. We 
are all on the same team. We want to get the lead out of aviation fuel. 
This amendment allows us to do that. The current situation is that when 
an industry standard consensus fuel emerges that airports will not be 
able to switch over to it because if you only have a single 
infrastructure, a single fuel truck, or a single fuel tank, the current 
grant assurances require you to continue offering the leaded fuel.
  Airports will be faced with an impossible choice: The choice between 
maintaining a leaded fuel, even though an unleaded replacement is 
available, or buying an entirely different infrastructure for the 
delivery of the unleaded fuel.
  I think we can all agree that makes no sense. This is just a 
commonsense solution to that problem. We have worked with committee 
staff on this. We have worked with industry on this. I think this is 
something that everyone should be able to get behind.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I believe that we are trying to 
achieve the same goals here and I appreciate the gentleman's approach, 
but I do believe that it is restrictive; maybe not intentionally so, 
but as a matter of consequence. That is why I am going to continue to 
oppose this amendment.
  Not every airport has the flexibility to do what Representative 
Obernolte suggests that is available to them. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.

[[Page H3831]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, to be clear, we are trying to give airports 
the option of a transition to an unleaded aviation fuel when that 
option becomes available to them. Some language is needed to do this 
because airports are confused about whether or not doing this is a 
violation of their FAA grant assurances. This amendment clarifies that 
it is not. An amendment, to be clear, is needed to clarify this 
situation.
  Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, not all companies have 
unleaded fuel that meets the standards that the gentleman suggests.
  I wish I could read this writing here. I would present a more 
eloquent rebuttal. Unfortunately, I can't read the scribble.
  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. Obernolte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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. 69 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. OGLES. 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 609, line 14, strike ``social and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on my 
amendment, which strikes ``social'' from the scope of factors examined 
under the FAA's BEYOND program expansion.
  Mr. Chair, this is a commonsense amendment that simply seeks to allow 
the FAA to focus on its core mission. The FAA's BEYOND program was 
crafted to yield the best outcomes for unmanned aircraft systems, not 
to promote garbage and irrelevant woke ideology.
  The FAA BEYOND program is innovative, because it was designed to 
understand the potential benefits of drone use and the processes for 
drone integration. There is no room for any sort of liberal agenda in 
this program nor in this legislation.
  My amendment removes the reference to social impacts examined under 
the BEYOND program expansion, which goes undefined in the bill, and 
could, therefore, be used to advance woke considerations. Expanding the 
scope of the BEYOND program to include social factors distracts from 
BEYOND's mission of making beyond visual line of sight operations 
repeatable, scaleable, and viable.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment that would 
remove the requirement for the FAA to study the social impacts of 
unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, in the expansion of FAA's BEYOND 
program.
  The BEYOND program is vital for evaluating the safe integration of 
beyond visual line of sight and other advanced UAS operations.
  There are many potential societal benefits of UAS that are already 
being tested by the BEYOND program. UAS technology can be used for 
remote sensing to make our power systems more resilient to deliver 
medical supplies to underserved communities or to assist first 
responders in disaster response and relief efforts.
  For example, Dominion Energy used drones to inspect more than 40 
power generation facilities, allowing them to conduct more frequent and 
efficient inspections.
  The expansion of the BEYOND program in the underlying bill will allow 
for testing of other new and emerging aviation concepts and 
technologies, such as more autonomous aircraft.
  As part of this testing, the program should consider societal impacts 
such as potential emissions, noise, and other community priorities.
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I would agree with my colleague that this 
program is vital. It is vital for the future of aviation and for 
medicine and for all sorts of applications. What it shouldn't be used 
for is a woke agenda.
  The BEYOND program expansion is supposed to enable testing of new 
emerging aviation concepts and technologies to inform policies, 
rulemaking, and guidance needed to enable these new concepts and 
technologies, again, not to be leveraged for wokeness.
  The government should not stick their nose into Americans' lifestyle, 
well-being, and societal preferences by use or leveraging the BEYOND 
program, and that is exactly what my colleague is encouraging.
  Mr. Chair, let us not allow the Biden administration to shift 
attention away from the real problems that Americans face every day to 
his administration's radical leftist agenda, which they try to creep 
into every aspect of our lives.
  I urge adoption of this very commonsense amendment, which focuses on 
the underlying bill, the true mission of the FAA, which is aviation and 
safety in our skies, not wokeness.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking 
member on the full committee.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, on the committee, the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we like to pride ourselves 
on being boring. We like to let folks know if they want excitement in 
Congress, there are other committees to attend or go to. The T&I 
Committee is not one of those. We like to think that we are focused on 
the transportation and infrastructure of the United States and on the 
things that we need to do to ensure its safety and building it out.
  I am confused by this amendment, that it exists at all, because what 
the amendment is doing is taking out a word, ``social,'' that the 
proponent is defining as something that is not in any way defined by 
the committee in the way he is defining it.
  Think about what we are talking about when we talk about the BEYOND 
program and what we would like to do beyond just looking at economic 
factors of drones. We want to look at how medical supplies can be 
delivered to rural areas. That is not an economic factor to look at. 
That is a social factor to look at, the ability to get healthcare to 
rural areas. The ability to assist law enforcement with things like 
search and rescue, that is not an economic factor. It is a social 
factor to ensure safer communities.
  Assisting wildfire responders as they fight wildfires, that is not an 
economic factor. That is a social issue to protect wildfire responders 
as well as the communities that are impacted by wildfires.
  I am just really confused. If this amendment had been in our 
committee and had been discussed, we would have never brought this up 
because it just doesn't live between our ears on the committee--this 
debate about the problem that people have with social factors. We would 
have realized these social factors are really about the things that I 
am talking about here, like how do we use the BEYOND program to ensure 
that we can use drones or uncrewed aerial systems, unmanned aerial 
systems, in order to provide factors that are beyond just the economic 
factors, how do they help the economy grow? They have uses beyond just 
helping the economy grow. The BEYOND program should be used to help us 
look at those issues.

[[Page H3832]]

  I would just ask folks to please let us do a bill that is actually 
trying to move aviation forward instead of bogging us down in some of 
these debates that frankly are better left, perhaps, in other 
committees but not in the T&I Committee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I do appreciate the intent of my colleague, but 
I think it should be noted that this serves as a back door for a woke 
agency if it chooses to be so. When we leave these back doors open, 
what we have seen is a weaponized FBI against American citizens. We 
have seen a weaponized IRS against American citizens. We have seen a 
weaponized Justice Department against American citizens.
  This does nothing more than open the door for the FAA to become 
weaponized on the social, woke agenda. Enough is enough. Yes, it is 
just a word, and that word should be stricken.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment. It is commonsense, it is 
conservative, it is the right thing to do, and it says no more wokeness 
in our country when it comes to the government and how it rules.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, it is ironic that today we talk 
about wokeness, and we talk about including a word, ``social,'' in the 
impacts that would be studied by the BEYOND program.
  The truth of the matter is that the BEYOND program is a Trump 
administration program, and the language that the gentleman seeks to 
eliminate from this authorization bill is the same language that was 
proposed, introduced, and passed under the Trump administration. There 
was no harm then, but now we have got a problem, because everybody is 
anti-woke.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. OGLES. 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:

       In section 1148(b)(5)(A), strike ``climate change'' and 
     insert ``weather''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, the FAA reauthorization bill has a section 
requiring the FAA to conduct research and development to mitigate the 
impact of turbulence.
  As part of this, it requires the agency to conduct R&D to understand 
the impacts of climate change and other factors on the nature of 
turbulence.
  My amendment changes this requirement to focus on the impacts of 
weather rather than climate change. Weather patterns are a common cause 
of turbulence. Jet streams, storms, and the movement of warm fronts and 
cold fronts can all cause it.
  Mr. Chair, this is, again, a commonsense amendment. I urge adoption, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ignore climate 
change as it studies the impacts of weather on the nature of 
turbulence.
  To deny the existence of climate change is to deny reality. There are 
copious amounts of data to show that climate change has been happening 
for decades.
  Recently, we have all experienced consecutive days of 90-plus-degree 
heat here in Washington, D.C., as well as we have seen sustained 
increases in temperatures across the country. In fact, June 2023 was 
the hottest June ever recorded on the planet, according to NASA.
  The scientific definition of weather refers to short-term atmospheric 
conditions, while climate change refers to long-term patterns and 
shifts in our climate.

                              {time}  1630

  The dramatic shifts caused by climate change are not merely weather, 
and to limit NOAA's ability to study climate change would neglect our 
responsibility for ensuring safe air travel.
  Studying these long-term patterns and understanding how they impact 
turbulence is critical for putting the best safety practices in place, 
as well as understanding how to mitigate the impacts of turbulence.
  NOAA must have the authority to gather the data we need to help keep 
Americans safe in the air, reduce flight delays, and improve our 
understanding of changing atmospheric conditions. Let us not force NOAA 
to put its head in the ground while climate change is happening all 
around us.
  Mr. Chair, if my colleagues are with me, they will oppose this 
amendment, and I encourage more of my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, as indicated by my colleague, the definition 
of climate change is a long-term event. A flight and turbulence would 
be a short-term occurrence.
  What we are talking about is weather in a moment on a duration of a 
flight and how it impacts said flight. It is changing weather, not 
climate change, that is to blame on your flight to and from D.C.
  We don't measure climate change over a duration of a flight, but this 
is what we are talking about--the duration of a flight--and turbulence 
that impacts flights while they are in the air.
  As we develop a better understanding of how the weather impacts 
turbulence, people may better understand how instances of turbulence 
might differ under different times.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is let us not allow agendas to 
slip into the mission.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. This is common sense, 
and I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Flood). The Chair reminds Members and staff not 
to traffic the well.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, long-term weather patterns 
affect turbulence, and that is what we need to study. We should not 
deny that there will be long-term effects of climate change. We should 
not ignore the fact that climate change is real and is happening today.
  To force our government to not look at these weather patterns in the 
long term is very shortsighted. Let's plan for this turbulence as we 
come to grips with climate change.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am ready to close.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments. I 
emphasize that if we allow or encourage the FAA to study climate 
change, if it were, it is going to lead to a boondoggle. The FAA is 
busy enough. They have enough on their hands. It makes sense to study 
weather patterns and turbulence. It does not make sense to allow woke 
ideologies to slip into the mission statement of an agency whose 
primary charter is to keep those in the air safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, safe travel in the future 
depends on the FAA's ability to predict long-term weather patterns, and 
that requires us to study the effects of climate change. That is what 
we need to do now. We need to do it to protect ourselves, our wives, 
our husbands, our children, our grandparents. We don't want any of our 
loved ones to die.
  Let's do the studying that we need in order to mitigate the effects 
of our previous ignoring of climate change as a

[[Page H3833]]

phenomenon. Let's study it and come to grips with it and make things 
safer for the traveling public as we proceed forward. That is what we 
are doing under this FAA reauthorization bill.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment hurts that process. For that reason, I 
oppose it and ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Owens

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. OWENS. 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 VIII, add the following:

     SEC. __. SLOT EXEMPTIONS FOR RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON 
                   NATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41718 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Additional Slot Exemptions.--
       ``(1) General slot exemptions.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall grant, by order, 14 exemptions from--
       ``(A) the application of sections 49104(a)(5), 49109, and 
     41714 of this title; and
       ``(B) the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(2) Exemption conditions.--The Secretary shall grant such 
     exemptions to non-limited incumbent and limited incumbent air 
     carriers serving Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as 
     of the date of enactment of this subsection to operate 
     limited frequencies of aircraft on routes between Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport and other airports.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In granting exemptions under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consider the extent to which 
     the exemptions will--
       ``(A) have a positive impact on the overall level of 
     competition in the markets that will be served as a result of 
     such exemptions;
       ``(B) produce competitive benefits, including the 
     likelihood that the service to airports will result in lower 
     fares or improved service options for aviation consumers;
       ``(C) not result in a significant increase in delays at 
     Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport;
       ``(D) ensure that travel options between Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport and airports located within the 
     perimeter described in section 49104 will not be reduced;
       ``(E) benefit underserved markets; and
       ``(F) not reduce runway safety at Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport.
       ``(4) Scheduling of slot exemptions.--In granting 
     exemptions under this subsection, the Secretary shall, in 
     coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and to the greatest extent practicable, seek 
     to work with air carriers to schedule such exemptions--
       ``(A) at times during which operations are typically lower 
     than the peak hourly capacity of Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport; and
       ``(B) at times and in a manner that will minimize the 
     potential for additional delays.
       ``(5) Restriction.--An exemption may not be granted under 
     this subsection with respect to any aircraft--
       ``(A) that is not a Stage 4 aircraft (as defined by the 
     Secretary) if the exemption is for an arrival or departure 
     between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; or
       ``(B) that is not a Stage 5 aircraft (as defined by the 
     Secretary) if the exemption is for an arrival or departure 
     between the hours of--
       ``(i) 6:00 a.m. and 6:59 a.m.; or
       ``(ii) 10:01 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
       ``(6) Air carrier limitations.--
       ``(A) Exemptions per air carrier.--Of the exemptions 
     described in paragraph (1), no air carrier may operate more 
     than 2 of such exemptions.
       ``(B) Limitation on aircraft size.--An air carrier may not 
     operate a multi-aisle or widebody aircraft under an exemption 
     issued under this subsection.
       ``(C) Prohibition on transfer of rights.--An air carrier 
     granted an exemption under this subsection is prohibited from 
     transferring the rights to its slot exemptions pursuant to 
     section 41714(j).
       ``(7) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to--
       ``(A) allow for conversion of existing slots allocated to 
     air carriers to serve communities located inside the 
     perimeter described in section 49109 to fulfill the 
     exemptions granted in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) enable the reduction of nonstop travel to communities 
     located within the perimeter described in section 49109.''.
       (b) Infrastructure Needs.--Section 44501(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) a list of projects or programs necessary to improve 
     capacity, reliability, and efficiency for Level 2 schedule 
     facilitated and Level 3 slot-controlled airports.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Owens) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 71.
  Mr. Chair, for 60 years, the federally imposed perimeter rule has 
limited access and increased costs for Americans flying into 
Washington's Reagan Airport.
  My amendment is simple. It adds seven new routes, one for each 
airline currently operating out of DCA, while preserving all existing 
flight routes.
  Congress is long overdue to modernize this arbitrary, protectionist 
Federal policy put in place for the economic protection of one airport 
and one airline.
  Deliberate misinformation has been circulating wildly among my 
colleagues, and I want to be clear: Our effort is not about benefiting 
one airport, one airline, or any one Member of Congress. It is about 
empowering American consumers by providing more options and greater 
convenience for people traveling to and from Washington, D.C.
  For those who have benefited from the monopoly created by the 
perimeter rule 60 years ago, the message is clear: America, your 
choices will remain limited and your ticket prices will remain high.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment 
to help DCA fly into the 21st century.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment falsely advertised as a compromise.
  Nobody asked our regional delegation about this, and we are united 
against adding more air traffic in DCA. DCA is way over capacity. It is 
the busiest runway in America and one of the shortest. There were 25 
million people served last year in an airport designed for 14 million.
  Mr. Chair, 20 percent of the flights are already more than an hour 
late, and this will only make it worse. This is a congested, complex 
airspace--think Capitol, White House, and Pentagon. It is the third 
highest in aborted takeoffs and landings. These safety concerns will 
only be magnified.
  It is not true that this amendment will lower ticket prices. The last 
time that the perimeter-plus slots were added, prices went up at both 
Dulles and DCA. If you use Reagan National now, count on spending many 
more hours lost on the tarmac or at the gate.
  Mr. Chair, why would you ever vote to make your commute worse? I urge 
my friends to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in agreement with this 
amendment. It is a commonsense compromise. I rise in support of it, and 
I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this amendment.
  This amendment would simply increase the average number of flight 
departures from Reagan National Airport from 400 average per day to 407 
flights departing per day, not anything more than that.
  For those who oppose this, the only reasons why airlines are opposing 
this is that they want to limit competition, and they want ticket 
prices to remain the highest in the Nation for flying in and out of 
Washington, D.C.
  When we allow more flights into Washington, D.C., and out of 
Washington, D.C., we allow more families to come in from west of the 
Mississippi to visit the Nation's Capital. We enable

[[Page H3834]]

more people to come in and work and be more efficient.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment that would increase safety risks, delays, cancelations, 
diversions, and noise at National Airport, all for the personal 
convenience of some Members of Congress.
  The Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority that manages Reagan National and Dulles Airports 
have both concluded that increasing the slot and perimeter rules would 
be harmful to the flying public.
  The slot and perimeter rules at National Airport exist to ensure 
operational viability for both National and Dulles International 
Airports. National and Dulles work as an integrated airport system to 
meet the needs of the traveling public.
  Dulles has the operational capacity, space, and infrastructure to 
handle larger, long-distance flights and more flights per day than 
National Airport. National Airport already has the busiest runway in 
the Nation, was built as a small regional airport, and was never meant 
to manage flights from across the country.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Texas delegation from San 
Antonio--Mr. Joaquin Castro, Mr. Chip Roy, Mr.  Greg Casar, and Mr. 
Tony Gonzales--for all working together, along with the Senators.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add seven slots to 
the Ronald Reagan National Airport.
  Right now, cities like San Antonio cannot get direct flights. The 
slots added in this amendment will allow more cities like San Antonio 
to have a direct flight.
  With a population of 1.4 million, San Antonio is the seventh largest 
city in the U.S. San Antonio is known as Military Town USA and has over 
80,000 Active-Duty members and 159,000 veterans. Joint Base San Antonio 
trains more soldiers than any other place in the country, and it is 
home to the Department of Defense's largest military hospital.
  We have to do this for the veterans. We have to do this for the 
soldiers.
  Mr. Chair, for Military Town USA, along with the San Antonio 
delegation, I ask that we pass this amendment.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  I have serious concerns about the existing congestion and limited 
resources at DCA at this time.
  An additional 14 flights--7 slots, but 14 flights--certainly stretch 
resources even further. Over the last 16 months, DCA has had the fifth 
most ground delay and stop counts in the country. The runway at DCA is 
also the busiest runway in the entire country.
  I understand wanting additional flights to DCA, but I am concerned 
that the amount of space and time in the day is limited. I have serious 
concerns about how it will negatively affect my constituents.
  Finally, I also am disappointed that there is no requirement that, 
before any additional flights, the Secretary must certify that they 
wouldn't reduce services to small and medium hub airports, strain the 
current landside and airside capacity at Reagan National Airport, and, 
as a result, increase travel time.
  Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Utah for leading this 
amendment, and I thank my friends in the San Antonio delegation for 
standing up for the people of San Antonio, who are on the outside 
looking in.
  San Antonio is a city of 1.5 million people. It is the seventh 
largest city, Joint Base San Antonio. My colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle just smirk it off and say: Oh, no, don't disrupt my flights. 
Don't disrupt my ability to get to my local airports.
  Do you know what? The next time you come to San Antonio, explain that 
to the men and women in uniform serving their country who can't take a 
flight to Reagan because you guys got something in 1966, and now it is 
a protectionist racket to hold onto something for yourselves.
  I won't take this flight, for the most part, unless I am going back 
to San Antonio. I have a direct flight because Austin was exempted, 
like 10 other cities were exempted. This is seven slots. It is less 
than 2 percent of the total. Stop the protectionist racket. Open it up 
to competition, seven airlines, seven slots.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is 
not a racket.
  This amendment would add 14 flights per day at the already heavily 
congested Ronald Reagan National Airport.
  It already has 820 flight operations per day. It is not a racket. The 
addition of 14 flights per day would further exacerbate an already 
stressed airport operation.
  It is not a racket. With limited gates and physical capacity, DCA 
doesn't have the space to safely process additional flight operations, 
often resulting in planes sitting on the tarmac waiting.
  It is not a racket.
  Not only does Ronald Reagan National Airport not have the capacity to 
support this extension, there are no protections against negative 
impacts on other complementary flights or other airports in the region: 
Dulles International Airport, Richmond, Roanoke, and Norfolk.
  Historically, slot expansions and perimeter exemptions at Ronald 
Reagan National Airport have come at the expense of fewer flights from 
other Virginia airports. It is not a racket. It is not a racket.
  Without protections ensuring the safety and sustainability at Ronald 
Reagan National Airport and the stability of other regional airports, 
this amendment will only hinder the current system.
  It is not a racket.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to support 
amendment No. 71 to H.R. 3935.
  My city of San Antonio is known as Military City USA. It is home to 
tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, intelligence professionals, and 
cybersecurity experts who need direct access to Washington, D.C.
  I hope that Members will support this amendment and support our 
airmen and our soldiers and support national security.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I 
have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, all this amendment is doing is adding seven flights, 
because in 1966, we went with an overregulated approach, and the 
citizens of the Western United States need to be able to come to the 
Nation's Capitol. It is the most expensive place to travel to.
  All we are trying to do is lower prices and increase competition. 
Traditionally, these are very conservative principles that we all 
should be able to support.
  We all support the free market. We have to be able to look and say: 
Things were different in 1966 than they are now. Planes are more quiet.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H3835]]

  

  Mr. MOORE of Utah. This is not a safety issue.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. This is simply special interests playing over 
here. Let the free market decide.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is no longer recognized.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Chair, this is not only an issue that evokes passion among 
Members, it is also very bipartisan. It is going to be bipartisan in 
opposition and bipartisan in support.
  We expected that on the committee, which is why we had asked for the 
Rules Committee to put something in order on the floor so we could have 
this debate and let the will of the House take its course.
  I would just note, though, in my informal survey of Members on my 
side of the aisle, the seven slot pairs have been committed only 36 
times already.
  The point is: There is a lot of overpromising taking place about 
which cities are going to be served by this deal.
  The problem with that is that one is too many and 100 is not enough, 
but the supply of runway at DCA is so small that it can't handle what 
it is taking now much less what increased demand will bring to it.
  Mr. Chair, it is a difficult issue. Members are going to be voting 
for and against on both sides, and I look forward to that vote.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose this amendment, which would 
risk flight safety and increase delays at National Airport, in the 
strongest terms possible. I will not, cannot support this bill if this 
amendment is adopted.
  This amendment violates every Congressional courtesy we try to extend 
to one another as colleagues who know our districts best. One of my 
first local government appointments was to the Fairfax County Airports 
Advisory Committee. I subsequently spent 14 years in local government 
helping maintain the delicate regional balance between the 2 major 
airports in Northern Virginia, National Airport and Dulles 
International Airport. I also led the effort to connect our nation's 
capital to Dulles via rail with the recently completed Silver Line 
extension of the DC Metro.
  So let me introduce my colleagues to National Airport. It has the 
busiest runway in America. The busiest in America. The airport is 
designed to serve 15 million passengers annually. Last year, it served 
24 million. That is 9 million passengers or 60 percent over capacity. 
The airport has the 3rd highest flight cancellation rate in the 
country, and 1 in every 5 flights is delayed by more than an hour.
  The FAA has certified that more flights would make those delays 
worse. This amendment, which would force even more flights out of 
National Airport, is reckless.
  The amendment, if adopted, would increase delays, exacerbate pilot 
and flight crew exhaustion, and risk the safety of flights in and out 
of National Airport.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. 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 Utah will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. PERRY. 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:

       Strike section 1132 of the bill.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the section that 
allows the administration to consider expanding the CLEEN Program.
  Now, as a reminder, in the CLEEN Program, the FAA provides awards to 
industry to develop and integrate technology that will reduce noise, 
emissions, and fuel burn.
  Now, looking over some of the projects, some of them aren't 
completely useless: improvements to wing performance and thermal 
efficiency for turbines may well contribute to cost savings. But that 
actually begs the question: Why can't these projects be funded by 
private industry alone?
  Surely, if they improve fuel efficiency, that is a clear profit-
driven motive to invest in new technologies.
  The program also funds the development of ``alternative'' jet fuels 
which is just another facet of the left's crusade to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions to meet completely arbitrary and unscientific targets.
  The administration aims to achieve ``net zero'' greenhouse gas 
emissions from the aviation sector by 2050.
  Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about that because you won't be 
flying when that happens.
  The so-called sustainable aviation fuel is critical to achieving this 
foolhardy goal.
  However, this fuel doesn't change the physics of an engine. The 
engine still emits carbon dioxide. Instead, emissions are actually 
produced out of waste products cooking oil and agricultural waste 
instead of fossil fuels, and then the engine burns that. That is what 
you are paying for, Mr. Chairman. The program makes taxpayers pay for 
that fuel.
  These fuels are extremely expensive and not widely adopted, as low as 
0.1 percent at last counting. The CLEEN Program acknowledges these 
shortcomings.
  Phase II simply furthered the understanding of key biofuel properties 
in demonstrating the viability of them. So it acknowledges it is 
actually not really changing anything, but we are just spending a lot 
of money burning cooking oil in an aviation engine.
  There is absolutely no reason we should actually be expanding this 
program that is pouring taxpayer dollars into technologies into which 
the public sector is unwilling to invest.
  They are unwilling to invest because there is no money in this. The 
only way it works is if the taxpayers pour all their money into it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike the 
requirement that the FAA administrator consider expanding the CLEEN 
Program, which stands for continuous lower energy, emission, and noise 
program, to new entrants.
  Now, I want to be clear. It doesn't necessarily mean new technologies 
or different kinds of technologies as much as it can also mean new 
companies that are looking to do the same thing but do it better. To 
ensure that the FAA administrator is not continually approving grants 
to existing companies that are already in the program who may not be 
succeeding, we want to be sure the FAA administrator is looking beyond 
the current slate of companies that are applying.
  In addition to that, of course, there are new entrants in the 
airspace. There is more projected use of even electronic aircraft. In 
the future, hydrogen is being looked at as a fuel for aviation--not 
tomorrow and maybe not in 5 years, but certainly within the next 10 to 
15 years.
  Doing some of the early work in this field is very important, so the 
FAA administrator needs the authority and the freedom to do just that.
  This amendment is pulling back on some of the innovation that we, 
frankly, can only look to the government to do, so that it builds a 
foundation for the private sector to build upon and sometimes in this 
industry to take off as well.
  Mr. Chair, so I would ask Members to oppose this amendment. Let the 
administrator continue to administer the CLEEN Program but send a clear 
message that they need to be looking beyond the regular sort of 
entrants that they are getting into this program and look to the future 
of aviation when they look at the CLEEN Program.

[[Page H3836]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my friend on the other side of the aisle is 
a good man. He is just, I think, misdirected on this occasion.
  I will be clear. I don't want the administrator to be spending time 
approving this contract or that contract. I don't want him doing any of 
it.
  As far as hydrogen, I marvel at this premise that somehow the 
government is the only one that can figure this out. Somehow this 
country figured out and invented the internal combustion engine, the 
lightbulb, the airplane, and went to space.
  But heaven forbid we figure this out without the government and 
without these taxpayers being forced to pay for it.
  The third phase of the CLEEN Program is awarding more than $100 
million for aircraft and engine companies to develop and demonstrate 
aircraft technologies that reduce fuel use, emissions, and noise. 
Relating to sustainable aviation gas, CLEEN funds are trying to 
research higher blends of biofuels to petroleum-based fuels which can 
affect seal performance.
  On average, this fuel costs three to five times more than 
conventional jet fuel. We already have the jet fuel. It is already 
efficient. It is already clean. We have already reduced emissions more 
than all the other countries combined. We already met the Paris climate 
accords requirements without being in the accord.
  Now, other barriers to adoption include risks related to adoption, 
including safety.
  Mr. Chairman, as a person who has sat behind the stick and who has 
been up in the air, I can tell you the pucker factor is pretty high 
when the engine quits. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be 
experimenting with fuel while I am up in the air, and I don't want the 
pilots up front to be forced to experiment with it because the 
government says so.
  We have something that works. The private sector can figure this out. 
They can invest in it, they can pay for it, and they can perfect it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, there is a race on. There is a 
race on aviation, a race to implement and use new fuels that are more 
efficient and that are also cleaner. There is a race on, and other 
countries and regions of the world are investing in that race, putting 
their companies at a competitive advantage over the U.S.-based 
companies. The CLEEN Program is one of our tools to participate in that 
race.
  The CLEEN Program also helps us invest in fuel efficiency. The fuel 
efficiency of aviation has helped reduce aviation fuel burn in this 
country.
  There is a direct relationship between the goodness of the taxpayer 
investment in the CLEEN Program to the new fuel-efficient airplanes 
that we see being used today and the fuel-efficient engines that we see 
being used today.
  The next version of that, the next step of that race is sustainable 
aviation fuel. It is in electric propulsion, and in the future it is 
hydrogen propulsion. There is quite a bit of private-sector investment 
going on in the use of hydrogen as a fuel to move things, including 
airplanes.
  Now, we are not quite there yet in this country in the private 
sector, but no one else is either. I want to win that race, and part of 
winning that race is ensuring that the Federal Government is a partner 
in winning that race. Winning that race in aviation is ensuring that 
FAA has tools like CLEEN to be sure that it is a partner with airlines, 
with entrepreneurs, and with innovators who want us to participate in 
this race.
  Mr. Chair, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, we don't need to provide more subsidies to 
support this climate smart agriculture practice and production of 
aviation biofuel feedstocks.
  It actually makes your food more expensive because we are burning 
your fuel in an aircraft instead of pumping it out of the ground where 
the fuel has come from and has worked very, very well.
  There are up to $3 billion in DOE loan guarantees. I want to win the 
race, too, but the Federal Government picking winners and losers 
ensures that we probably will lose the race because we are going to 
pick the wrong one, as the Federal Government normally does.
  Once again, this is an absurd policy. If it were viable at all, the 
private sector would invest in it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if going to the Moon in 1969 
was viable at all, the private sector would have done it. It didn't. We 
did it. America did it, and America did it with investment.
  I am not making a wild claim like going to the Moon is exactly this 
kind of race that we are faced with, but there is a clear role for the 
Federal Government to play in a partnership with innovators and 
entrepreneurs to ensure that the next generation of innovation and 
aviation happens in the United States and not elsewhere.
  I ask folks to support the CLEEN program, to not limit its use, and 
to oppose this 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. PERRY. 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 11, line 14, strike ``4,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,800,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 15, strike ``4,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,800,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 16, strike ``4,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,800,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 17, strike ``4,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,800,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 18, strike ``4,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,800,000,000''.
       Page 12, line 24, strike ``12,730,000,000''and insert 
     ``12,037,000,000''.
       Page 12, line 25, strike ``13,035,000,000'' and insert 
     ``12,337,000,000''.
       Page 13, line 1, strike ``13,334,000,000'' and insert 
     ``12,637,000,000''.
       Page 13, line 3, strike ``13,640,000,000'' and insert 
     ``12,937,000,000''.
       Page 13, line 5, strike ``13,954,000,000'' and insert 
     ``13,237,000,000''.
       Page 818, line 1, strike ``255,130,000'' and insert 
     ``220,000,000''.
       Page 818, line 2, strike ``261,000,000'' and insert 
     ``223,000,000''.
       Page 818, line 3, strike ``267,000,000'' and insert 
     ``226,000,000''.
       Page 818, line 4, strike ``273,000,000'' and insert 
     ``229,000,000''.
       Page 818, line 5, strike ``279,000,000'' and insert 
     ``232,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just like the last amendment, this amendment recognizes the fact that 
our country is out of money. We are borrowing money to pay our bills, 
and we are paying for things that we can't afford. We are paying for 
things that these folks can't afford.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the authorization levels in section 
101, which is airport planning; section 103, which is operations; and 
section 1111, which is research and development.
  The authorization levels in the underlying bill represent a 
significant increase from the levels set by Congress in the 2018 
reauthorization bill.
  For example, the underlying bill raises the authorizations by 
significant

[[Page H3837]]

amounts from FY 2023 to FY 2024: 101 by $650 million, 103 by $1.2 
billion, and 1111 by $41 million.
  This amendment reduces the growth of these authorization levels while 
still increasing the funds authorized for FAA, resulting in a net 
savings of nearly $5 billion.
  If we are going to raise the level, understanding and recognizing 
inflation caused by out-of-control spending in this place, we are going 
to recognize and understand that the FAA still has to continue to 
operate, but we are not going to raise it so much.
  Our national debt is out of control, and it is this mindless, rapid 
growth of spending in Washington that has put our Nation on the brink 
of catastrophe.
  Moreover, this massive increase in funding is not resulting in a 
safer or more efficient FAA mission. That is their mission: safety, 
more efficiency. It instead represents a significant misallocation of 
resources to woke and green missions at the expense of safety and 
financial sanity.
  We must reorient the FAA back to its original mission and ensure the 
funding we provide to them is appropriate to meet the moment while not 
wasting taxpayer resources.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment which would slash funding authorization levels for the 
Airport Improvement Program, the AIP, FAA operations and maintenance, 
and research and development efforts.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee overwhelmingly agreed 
that AIP funding must be increased to $4 billion annually in order to 
fund critical programs across the FAA and invest in our aviation 
industry.
  This amendment would slash that funding level and impede the full 
funding of grants and projects to address the pressing infrastructure 
needs of airports across the country.
  It would also significantly decrease FAA operations and maintenance 
funding, which jeopardizes the effectiveness of the agency amidst 
growing demands placed upon the aviation industry.
  Finally, this amendment cuts agreed-upon funding for the FAA's 
research and development activities on aircraft safety, on 
environmental impact mitigation, on airport infrastructure, and on 
human factors and new airspace entrants, among other important issues.
  Cutting this critical funding would undermine U.S. aerospace 
innovation and our relationship in the global sector. Moreover, it 
would put public safety at risk.
  For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from the other side of 
the aisle, but I want to clarify. It is not a cut. We are actually 
increasing the spend; just not as much.
  Now, I know in Washington, oh, my goodness, who knew the request was 
up to $4 billion? I imagine they would take more than $4 billion if we 
gave it to them.
  We are broke. Hello, America. Wake up, everybody. I have a news flash 
for you. We don't have anymore money. We are borrowing money to pay the 
bills. We are borrowing money to pay for things that we can't afford. 
That is what we are trying to fix here.
  If you want to save some money somewhere else and spend it here, I am 
all ears. Let's talk about it. Something has to give. These people 
can't afford any more. They are not getting more out of this.
  I have been in the room. I used to sit on appropriations in the State 
House. I know how it goes. Well, we spent this much this year or last 
year. We are just going to add some more this year.
  Nobody goes through line by line and says, oh, well, this costs this 
much more because concrete costs X and labor costs Y. Nobody does that. 
They just add money to it.
  It is all arbitrary, and we know it. Everybody in this place knows 
it. That is why we should spend less because we don't have the money to 
spend.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, if we have the money to shore up 
our nuclear defense capability, more and more nuclear weapons, we 
certainly have the ability to keep these people up here safe as they 
fly in and out of Washington, D.C.
  Our families, businesspeople, the flying public deserves Congress to 
fully fund what the consensus has arrived at.
  This is what Americans want us to do. They want us to arrive at a 
consensus. This FAA reauthorization bill is a bipartisan effort, and 
all of the figures were arrived at in a bipartisan way, and we present 
this to the American people for their protection and for their safety.
  I agree that there may be cuts that may be necessary, but not to this 
particular program. I respectfully disagree with my friend on the other 
side of the aisle, and I will ask my colleagues to join me in being 
opposed to this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, since my good friend brought it up, it was a 
bipartisan agreement. So the world knows that it was a bipartisan 
agreement here, known in Congress as what is called a four-corners 
deal: two on their side, two on our side.
  There are 435 Members of Congress. I wasn't involved. I wasn't one of 
the four. You weren't one of the four. Nobody else here was one of the 
four.
  They decided to spend all these billions of dollars. They didn't come 
to me and say, well, we need this much for concrete and this much for 
research, because they decided, and this is what is in the bill. Heaven 
forbid anybody challenge it.
  Mr. Chair, we do not have the money. We should reduce the 
authorization. It is still an increase, just not as much, and it 
recognizes the fact that our country is broke.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank you for the indulgence 
here. The fact is, we have the money, and we need to spend this money 
to promote the public welfare and the public safety. That is what we 
are doing with this expenditure, with this authorization for that 
expenditure, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting public 
safety and the safety of the flying public.
  We have the best aviation system in the world. We need to keep it 
that way. We have to invest in it. That is what this is all about. We 
don't need to divest and put our public at risk.
  Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues vote 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75 
printed in part A of House Report 118-147.
  Mr. PERRY. 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 257, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert the following 
     (and adjust the margin of the subsequent text accordingly):
       ``(9) `heliport' means an area of land, water, or
       Page 257, line 15, strike ``and'' and insert closing 
     quotation marks and a semicolon.
       Page 257, strike line 16.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 597, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H3838]]

  

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the word 
``vertiport'' from the definition of ``heliport'' for the purposes of 
AIP funding, the same funding that the gentleman on the other side of 
the aisle just mentioned that we need so much of.
  As a helicopter pilot, I am very interested in the funding for 
heliports, but vertiports are going to use some of that funding; 
meanwhile, not paying anything in.
  Let me tell you, Mr. Chair. Vertiports exist for the purpose of 
advanced air mobility and electric vertical takeoff and landing or 
eVTOL vehicles, which only exist in prototype and other nascent stages.
  Mr. Chair, eVTOL is so immature in its development that there is a 
reality index that actually exists--an Advanced Air Mobility Reality 
Index.
  The reality index ranks companies and essentially determines whether 
there is a reality that these things are ever going to even come to the 
market, be produced, and be viable. Is that something we should be 
investing in?
  These are ranked and combined to describe the likelihood of the 
aircraft certification and production on scale. Again, this is a 
ranking of the likelihood that these things even get produced, much 
less used.
  Furthermore, if these vehicles become the norm, Jetson style like 
their proponents envision, allowing AAM vehicles to receive the 
benefits of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund without paying into it, 
evokes the same debate we are currently having about the government-
mandated transition to electric automobiles which don't pay into the 
highway fund. They don't pay in, but they use it.
  The same thing here. These vehicles want to use it, but they don't 
want to pay into it. They are robbing from everybody else that has to 
use it that actually currently exists and are used.
  I haven't even gotten into the drawbacks of the potential vehicles, 
but how about being concerned about adequate storage for hazardous 
materials to respond to lithium and other critical mineral-related 
fires?
  The fires are challenging enough for firefighters to address on the 
ground or at sea, let alone having them occur between skyscrapers.
  If you wonder, do these fires actually exist, you can just search the 
internet. It is widely known. You can see the electric vehicles burning 
at the charger, burning people's garages, burning and burning and 
burning. There is a problem because they are unstable.
  If you want to get in the air and fly in one of these things, God 
bless you, but your money is going to be transferred to deal with these 
things that don't pay into the fund. They don't pay anything in, yet 
they are going to draw money out.
  This system works when the users pay into it. That is how it works. 
Otherwise, these folks up here are going to have to pay extra because 
there is not going to be enough money in the fund to pay for all of it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I speak in opposition to the 
amendment. My friend on the other side is well intentioned on this. 
However, we may be putting the cart before the horse.
  This bill would strike the requirement in the underlying bill for the 
FAA to update the definitions in regulation to classify vertiports as a 
subset of heliports.
  The term ``vertiport'' is already being used in the advanced air 
mobility, AAM, industry to describe points at which these advanced 
aircraft can safely take off and land.

                              {time}  1715

  The updated definition in the underlying bill will help to create a 
unified system for vertical aviation infrastructure, including for 
electric aircraft, and provides necessary regulatory certainty for this 
emerging sector to grow in the United States and also sets the stage 
for the assessment of revenue by which we can continue to keep the 
system upgraded and available for all, including these aircraft that 
will use the vertiport.
  This is about planning for the future, laying in the regulatory 
groundwork for the future. For the reason that we need to do this, I 
oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification, 
and I marvel at the fact that we can include the definition and the 
term in preparation for something that right now doesn't really exist 
practically. It is in people's minds, and it is on a computer. There 
are prototypes out there.
  We can do that, but we can't find any way to charge and make sure 
they are paying their fair share into the fund that they are going to 
use the infrastructure of, right? The infrastructure is created by the 
fund, and they are going to use it, but they ain't going to pay. We 
can't figure that out, but we sure can make sure that they have access 
to everything else that everyone is paying for.
  Ladies and gentlemen, in Washington, D.C., this is how things go 
awry. This is how you go broke. This is how you can't afford things 
that you need to do, like pay for your highways, filled now with 
electric vehicles that are not paying into the system, paying nothing 
for the roads that they are on, weighing thousands of pounds in excess 
of most of the regular cars that are using the road now and are paying 
the fee.
  Do you know what we are going to do because we are so brilliant and 
because that is working so well? We are going to double down and do it 
in the air, as well. That is awesome.
  It is not awesome, ladies and gentlemen. Do you know what else is not 
awesome? Most of the materials sourced in this stuff come from the 
Communist Chinese, made by slave labor, whether it is the actual slave 
labor in concentration camps in east Turkistan or whether it is the 
child slave labor in the Congo feeding the Chinese machine, feeding the 
machine here so we can virtue signal that we are doing everything 
clean, that we are electrified and are not going to charge anybody for 
it. Somebody is going to pay.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we do need to raise 
revenue, and I look forward to supporting any proposals that my friend 
on the other side would propose, out of fairness, I think. I mean, no 
one segment should be able to get a free ride, so I would appreciate 
that.
  The fact of the matter is that most of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle have already signed on to the Grover Norquist no new tax 
pledge, so for years, they have neglected to raise revenues where 
appropriate, and they will continue to abide by the pledge that they 
have given.
  So far, I don't see any yield in that trajectory, but the fact is we 
are going to have to raise some revenue as we move forward, and I look 
forward to working with the gentleman in that endeavor.
  Mr. Chair, I ask 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.
  Mr. PERRY. 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. 
Graves of Missouri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Flood, 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. 
3935) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize and improve 
the Federal Aviation Administration and other civil

[[Page H3839]]

aviation programs, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________