Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 35 (Monday, February 23, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2248-H2257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ROTORCRAFT OPERATIONS TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT REFORM ACT

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 2503) to require all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, to improve aviation safety, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 2503

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Rotorcraft Operations
Transparency and Oversight Reform Act'' or the ``ROTOR Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(2) ADS-B in.--The term ``ADS-B In'' means onboard avionics
equipment that receives and processes Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast transmissions that are broadcast in
accordance with sections 91.225 and 91.227 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), and
other aviation advisory information from ground stations,
that provides the aircraft with awareness to the location of
other aircraft and traffic advisories.
(3) ADS-B out.--The term ``ADS-B Out''--
(A) has the meaning given such term in section 91.227 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(B) broadcasts information from the aircraft in accordance
with sections 91.225 and 91.227 of such title 14 (or any
successor regulations).
(4) Affected aircraft.--The term ``affected aircraft''
means any aircraft that is required to operate in accordance
with section 91.225 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
or any successor regulation.
(5) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives.
(6) Cabinet member.--The term ``Cabinet Member'' means an
individual who is the head (including an acting head) of the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor,
the Department of State, the Department of Transportation,
the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or any other individual who occupies a position
designated by the President as a Cabinet-level position.
(7) FAA.--The term ``FAA'' means the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(8) National capital region; ncr.--The terms ``National
Capital Region'' and ``NCR'' mean the geographic area located
within the boundaries of--
(A) the District of Columbia;
(B) Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in the State of
Maryland;
(C) Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
Counties and the City of Alexandria in the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and
(D) all cities and other units of government within the
geographic areas described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).
(9) Powered-lift.--The term ``powered-lift''--
(A) has the meaning given such term in section 1.1 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation); and
(B) includes vertical-lift flight mode and wing-borne
flight mode, as such terms are defined in section 194.103 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation).

[[Page H2249]]

(10) Rotorcraft.--The term ``rotorcraft'' has the meaning
given such term in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (or any successor regulation).
(11) Transport airplane.--The term ``transport airplane''
has the meaning given such term in section 44741(i) of title
49, United States Code.
(12) Unmanned aircraft system.--The term ``unmanned
aircraft system'' has the meaning given such term in section
44801 of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 3. REVISION TO EXCEPTION FOR ADS-B OUT TRANSMISSION.

(a) ADS-B Out Reforms.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Sensitive government mission.--Beginning on the date of
enactment of this section, in applying section 91.225(f)(1)
of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the term
``sensitive government mission'' shall be narrowly construed
and shall not include routine flights, non-classified
flights, proficiency flights, or flights of Federal officials
below the rank of Cabinet Member or the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
(B) Notification.--For the purposes of interpreting section
91.225(f)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the
operating agency shall--
(i) when operating a sensitive government mission during
which the aircraft will not be transmitting ADS-B Out, notify
Air Traffic Control; and
(ii) notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on the Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on the Armed Services of the House of
Representatives on a monthly basis regarding each sensitive
government mission within Class B airspace operated during
such month.
(2) Rulemaking and administrative action.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
(i) issue or revise regulations to update section 91.225(f)
of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to comply with the
requirements of this section; and
(ii) revise any memorandum of agreement between the FAA and
any other Federal, State, local, or Tribal agency to conform
with the revised regulations described in clause (i),
including any agreement pursuant to section 1046 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
(B) Report.--If the Administrator fails to issue or revise
regulations pursuant to subparagraph (A) or revise any
memorandum of agreement between the FAA and any other agency
pursuant to such subparagraph, the Administrator shall,
within 30 days, submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on the status of such regulations,
including the reasons that the Administrator has failed to
issue or revise such regulations within the period required
under such subparagraph.
(b) GAO Review and Report.--Not later than the date that is
2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) review the utilization of exceptions under section
91.225(f) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
successor regulation), as revised under subsection (a), to
determine--
(A) whether the Department of Defense and other relevant
Federal agencies or other applicable operators have utilized
such exceptions in accordance with relevant laws and
regulations; and
(B) the extent of such utilization;
(2) compare the utilization of exceptions specified in such
section 91.225(f) before and after the issuance of revised
regulations under subsection (a); and
(3) submit to the Administrator and the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the findings of the review
conducted under paragraph (1) and the comparison conducted
under paragraph (2).
(c) FAA Review of Non-compliant Operators.--Upon submission
of the report under subsection (b)(3), the Administrator
shall--
(1) determine whether any Federal agency or other
applicable operator that has been found to have not utilized
the exceptions under section 91.225(f) of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), as revised
under subsection (a), in accordance with relevant laws and
regulations shall be permitted to continue to utilize such
exceptions; and
(2) not later than 30 days after the date on which the
Comptroller General submits the report under subsection
(b)(3), brief the appropriate committees of Congress on such
determination.
(d) Reports.--
(1) To the administrator.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this section, and on a quarterly basis
thereafter, each Federal, State, local, and Tribal agency
that performs sensitive government missions as described in
section 91.225(f)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulation), as revised under subsection
(a), shall submit to the Administrator a report that
includes--
(A) an attestation that such operations are regularly
transmitting ADS-B Out and are conducted with proper
consideration to aviation safety;
(B) a list of operations delineated by flight in which the
ADS-B Out equipment is not in transmit mode because the
aircraft was performing a sensitive government mission,
including the airport, airspace location, date, time,
duration, and mission type of each such operation; and
(C) with respect to any classified operation, a classified
annex.
(2) To congress.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, and biannually thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on the frequency and nature of the ADS-B
Out exceptions granted to Federal, State, local, and Tribal
agencies under section 91.225(f)(1) of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), as revised
under subsection (a). Such report--
(i) shall include--

(I) aggregated data on the operations in which ADS-B Out
equipment is not in transmit mode by each agency described in
paragraph (1); and
(II) a determination from the Administrator as to whether
each operation described in paragraph (1)(B) jeopardizes
aviation safety; and

(ii) may include a classified annex.
(B) Special notification.--If an agency described in
paragraph (1) operates a flight using an exception granted
under section 91.225(f)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (or any successor regulation), as revised under
subsection (a), 5 or more times in a calendar month, or fails
to provide to the Administrator the attestation required
under paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall notify the
appropriate committees of Congress of such use within 14 days
of being notified of such use. For the purposes of this
subparagraph, a flight shall be interpreted as the period
beginning when an aircraft moves under its own power for the
purpose of flight and ending when the aircraft lands.
(e) Annual Inspector General Audits.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 3 years
after the date of enactment of this section, the Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation (in this section
referred to as the ``Inspector General'') shall conduct an
annual audit of FAA oversight of all operations that utilize
an exception under section 91.225(f) of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), as revised
under subsection (a), including Federal agency operations.
(2) Considerations.--In conducting an audit under paragraph
(1), the Inspector General shall assess the efficacy of FAA
oversight related to the following:
(A) Ensuring exceptions under such section 91.225(f)(1) (or
any successor regulation) are strictly utilized by operators
in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.
(B) Ensuring exceptions under such section 91.225(f)(1) (or
any successor regulation) are not routinely used by
operators.
(C) Identifying and engaging with any operator not in
compliance with relevant laws and regulations relating to
exceptions under such section 91.225(f)(1) (or any successor
regulation).
(D) Any other factor determined appropriate by the
Inspector General.
(3) Briefings to congress.--The Inspector General shall
brief the appropriate committees of Congress on an annual
basis after the completion of each annual audit.

SEC. 4. ADS-B IN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Requirement for ADS-B In Operation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall issue a
final rule in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, to require any person operating an aircraft
(other than an unmanned aircraft, as defined in section 44801
of title 49, United States Code) required to be equipped with
ADS-B Out in accordance with section 91.225 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), to be
equipped with and operating with ADS-B In equipment that
provides the aircraft with awareness to the location of other
aircraft and traffic advisories, unless otherwise authorized
by air traffic control.
(2) Compliance deadlines.--In issuing a final rule under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall--
(A) include an effective date of not later than 60 days
after the date on which such final rule is published in the
Federal Register; and
(B) require aircraft described in paragraph (1) to be
equipped with ADS-B In not later than December 31, 2031.
(3) Final regulation requirements.--In issuing a final rule
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall, at a minimum,
do the following:
(A) Performance standards.--The Administrator shall
establish appropriate performance requirements for ADS-B In
equipment to provide integrated safety-enhancing capabilities
for a pilot or other flight crew, including by increasing
situational awareness to the location of other aircraft and
providing traffic advisories with alerting sufficient to
provide traffic advisory indications while airborne and on
the airport surface, such as visual and aural advisories.
(B) Alternative equipment or technology.--With respect to
aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of less
than 12,500 pounds when operating under part 91 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, and qualifying military aircraft
as specified by the Administrator in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Administrator shall establish
performance requirements for

[[Page H2250]]

alternative equipment or technology that the Administrator
determines acceptable in satisfying the ADS-B In requirement.
The performance requirements shall, at a minimum--
(i) provide similar or improved situational awareness to
the location of other airborne traffic, as well as traffic
advisory information; and
(ii) leverage the use of portable ADS-B In receivers or
equipment that allow display on an existing or future
electronic flight bag or panel mounted display, provided that
the installation or use of such equipment does not adversely
affect other required avionics or the airworthiness of the
aircraft.
(C) Required briefing.--The Administrator shall brief the
appropriate committees of Congress, the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives, on at least a monthly basis,
regarding the alternative equipment or technology for
qualifying military aircraft prior to determining that such
equipment or technology is acceptable to satisfy the ADS-B In
requirement.
(D) Guidance.--The Administrator shall issue relevant
guidance for aircraft operators and other appropriate
stakeholders regarding the types of equipment that satisfy
the performance requirements described in this paragraph.
(4) Other requirements.--In issuing a final rule under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include--
(A) requirements for ADS-B In equipment and the use of such
equipment;
(B) technical assistance to facilitating ADS-B In equipage
across the entire fleet of affected aircraft, including, as
appropriate, guidance under part 26 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, to provide support for affected
transport airplane operators in complying with the
requirements of this section;
(C) any other associated guidance necessary to assist
operators and other stakeholders in identifying equipment
that satisfies the ADS-B In performance standards described
in paragraph (3) prior to the compliance deadline described
in paragraph (2)(B);
(D) a determination of alternative equipment or technology
described in subsection (e); and
(E) a presumption, absent clear and compelling evidence to
the contrary, that ADS-B In equipment is cost beneficial and
improves aviation safety.
(5) Congressional briefings.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this section, and every 90 days
thereafter, the Administrator shall brief the appropriate
committees of Congress, as well as publish a publicly
available report, on the status of--
(A) the ADS-B In rulemaking required under paragraph (1);
and
(B) after the compliance deadline described in paragraph
(2)(A), the implementation and oversight of such ADS-B In
requirement.
(b) Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.--
(1) Committee.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator may establish a
negotiated rulemaking committee (in this section referred to
as the ``committee'') pursuant to section 565 of title 5,
United States Code, to negotiate proposed regulations to
implement the requirements described in subsection (a).
(B) Membership.--If the Administrator elects to establish a
committee under this subsection, the committee shall be
composed of--
(i) representatives of--

(I) the FAA;
(II) air carriers;
(III) avionics manufacturers;
(IV) aircraft manufacturers; and
(V) general aviation organizations;

(ii) the exclusive bargaining representative of air traffic
controllers of the FAA certified under section 7511 of title
5, United States Code;
(iii) organizations representing certified collective
bargaining representatives of airline pilots, including the
principal organization representing the largest certified
collective bargaining representative of airline pilots;
(iv) aviation safety experts outside of the FAA; and
(v) any other representatives determined appropriate by the
Administrator.
(C) Required consultation.--In establishing a committee
under this subsection, the Administrator--
(i) shall consult with the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Homeland Security; and
(ii) may consult with other Federal agencies as
appropriate.
(2) Requirements.--If the Administrator elects to establish
a committee under this subsection, the Administrator shall do
the following:
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall direct the
committee to make recommendations relating to--
(i) ADS-B In equipment and its use;
(ii) ADS-B In equipment performance standards pursuant to
subsection (a)(3);
(iii) the consideration of effective approaches to
facilitating ADS-B In equipage across the entire fleet of
affected aircraft, including requirements under part 26 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to provide support for
affected transport category airplane operators in complying
with the requirements of this section; and
(iv) with respect to aircraft with a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of less than 12,500 pounds when operating
under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, a
recommendation for low cost alternative equipment or
technology in accordance with subsection (e).
(B) Lack of committee consensus.--In the event the
committee does not reach a consensus regarding a
recommendation for low cost alternative equipment or
technology under subparagraph (A)(iv), the Administrator
shall, after the submission of the committee under paragraph
(3), consider prescribing a low cost alternative that
includes the criteria described in subsection (e).
(3) Submission to the administrator.--If the Administrator
elects to establish a committee under this subsection, not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
section, the committee shall submit to the Administrator--
(A) a consensus proposal of regulations to implement the
requirement described in subsection (a)(1); or
(B) in the event the committee does not reach a consensus,
a report identifying any points of agreement and disagreement
with respect to such proposed regulations.
(4) Proposed rule.--If the Administrator elects to
establish a committee under this subsection, not later than
180 days after receiving the submission of the committee
under paragraph (3), the Administrator shall issue a proposed
rule, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, that either--
(A) to the maximum extent possible consistent with the
legal obligations of the FAA, uses the consensus proposal of
the committee under paragraph (3)(A) as the basis for the
proposed rule for notice and comment, including with respect
to any standards or requirements described in subsection
(a)(3); or
(B) in the event the committee does not reach a consensus,
considers the points of agreement and disagreement submitted
by the committee under paragraph (3)(B).
(c) Consultation Required Without Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee.--If the Administrator does not establish a
committee under subsection (b), prior to issuing a final
rule, the Administrator shall consult with appropriate
stakeholders in conducting the rulemaking required under
subsection (a)(1), including at a minimum the representatives
described in subsection (b)(1)(B).
(d) Phased-in Retrofit.--
(1) In general.--In issuing a final rule under subsection
(a)(1), the Administrator shall--
(A) establish a process by which the operator of an
affected aircraft, in service as of the date on which the
final rule under subsection (a)(1) is published in the
Federal Register in accordance with subsection (a)(2)(A), may
apply to the Administrator to request additional time, not to
exceed a period of 1 year after the deadline described in
subsection (a)(2)(B), to finalize equipage of its fleet and
make ADS-B In operational, provided that--
(i) an aircraft operator, owner, or their agent submits an
application deemed acceptable to the Administrator for
additional time for compliance, including a justification for
such request and an attestation of actions to date
demonstrating progress toward achieving compliance;
(ii) the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, determines additional time is required to
mitigate a significant disruption to air transportation; and
(iii) the Administrator determines the aircraft operator or
owner does not have any uncorrected violations of subchapters
F and G of chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
(B) notify the appropriate committees of Congress not later
than 14 days after making a determination under clause (ii)
or (iii) of subparagraph (A).
(2) Special rule for agents.--With the exception of an
agent representing an owner or operator of transport
airplanes, for the purposes of this subsection, an agent may
represent more than 1 aircraft operator or owner of the same
type, model, or manufacturer and may submit 1 or more
applications under paragraph (1)(A)(i), each of which may
contain multiple aircraft operators or owners.
(e) Low Cost Alternative Method of Compliance.--In issuing
a final rule under subsection (a)(1), the Administrator shall
determine low cost equipment or technologies that provide
similar or improved situational awareness to the location of
other airborne traffic, as well as traffic advisory
information, that satisfy the ADS-B In equipage requirement
for aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of
less than 12,500 pounds when operated under part 91 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations. In making such a
determination, the Administrator shall consider the use of--
(1) portable ADS-B In receivers; and
(2) equipment that allows display on an existing or future
electronic flight bag or panel mounted display, provided the
installation or use does not adversely affect other required
avionics or the airworthiness of the aircraft.
(f) Proactive Equipage.--With respect to any aircraft for
which ADS-B In equipment is available and complies with the
requirements of the final rule issued under subsection
(a)(1), the operator of any such aircraft shall take all
appropriate actions necessary to equip such aircraft with
ADS-B In prior to the compliance deadline described in
subsection (a)(2).

[[Page H2251]]

(g) Separation Standards; Relevant Controller Training.--
(1) Rulemaking.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the
effective date of the final rule described in subsection (a),
the Administrator shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
to establish separation standards, as appropriate, that
leverage ADS-B Out or ADS-B In equipment, and all other
available technological capabilities in the air traffic
control system, to achieve safety and efficiency benefits
throughout the national airspace system, including on an
airport surface and within Class E airspace (as defined in
section 71.71 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation).
(B) Consultation.--In conducting the rulemaking under this
subsection, the Administrator shall consult with appropriate
stakeholders, including, at a minimum--
(i) representatives of--

(I) air carriers;
(II) original equipment manufacturers; and
(III) general aviation organizations;

(ii) organizations representing certified collective
bargaining representatives of airline pilots, including the
principal organization representing the largest certified
collective bargaining representative of airline pilots;
(iii) the exclusive bargaining representative of air
traffic controllers of the FAA certified under section 7111
of title 5, United States Code;
(iv) aviation safety experts from outside the FAA; and
(v) any other stakeholder deemed appropriate by the
Administrator.
(2) Required updates to faa orders.--Not later than 18
months after the issuance of the notice of proposed
rulemaking under paragraph (1)(A), the Administrator shall
complete revisions, as appropriate, to FAA Order 7110.65 and
other relevant FAA Orders, to increase safety and efficiency
benefits in the national airspace system.
(3) Relevant controller training.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the compliance
deadline described in subsection (a)(2), the Administrator
shall revise initial and recurrent air traffic controller
training, as appropriate, in accordance with FAA Orders
3000.22 and 3120.4 and revise associated orders and
directives, as appropriate, to ensure such controllers are
trained to apply any new separation standards and procedures.
(B) Requirements.--In revising training under subparagraph
(A), the Administrator shall--
(i) consider human factors impacts, appropriate phraseology
adjustments, and surface movement applications; and
(ii) consult with the exclusive bargaining representative
of air traffic controllers of the FAA certified under section
7111 of title 5, United States Code.
(h) ACAS-X Action Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress an action plan for
advancing the deployment of the Airborne Collision Avoidance
System-X (in this section referred to as ``ACAS-X''), or any
variant or successor technology, in the national airspace
system. The Administrator shall publish the action plan in a
publicly available format not later than 10 days after
submitting such action plan to Congress.
(2) Contents.--In developing the action plan under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include--
(A) a strategic roadmap for the deployment of ACAS-X
technology, including steps required for widespread adoption
among aircraft operators (including rotorcraft operators);
(B) actions and funding necessary to complete any
applicable research, development, testing, evaluation, and
standards development needed to support the certification of
such technology;
(C) plans for engagement with appropriate stakeholders,
including--
(i) aircraft operators, including those in the Department
of Defense;
(ii) aviation safety experts outside the FAA;
(iii) avionics manufacturers;
(iv) aircraft manufacturers;
(v) general aviation organizations;
(vi) the exclusive bargaining representative of air traffic
controllers of the FAA certified under section 7511 of title
5, United States Code;
(vii) organizations representing certified collective
bargaining representatives of airline pilots, including the
principal organization representing the largest certified
collective bargaining representative of airline pilots; and
(viii) any other stakeholders determined appropriate by the
Administrator;
(D) engagement with foreign civil aviation authorities to
harmonize international standards for certification of such
technology;
(E) ACAS-X interoperability considerations for aircraft
operators (including rotorcraft operators) equipped with ADS-
B Out and ADS-B In equipment;
(F) an assessment of safety benefits for aircraft operators
equipping with such technology, including civil and military
operators; and
(G) any recommendations for administrative or legislative
action, as determined appropriate by the Administrator, to
advance such technology deployment.
(3) Implementation.--The Administrator may take actions, as
appropriate, to implement the action plan developed under
paragraph (1).
(4) Briefing.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Administrator submits the action plan under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall brief the appropriate
committees of Congress on the contents of such action plan
and any prospective actions to implement such plan.
(i) ARAC Tasking.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall task the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as
the ``ARAC'') with reviewing and assessing the need for
aircraft operating in Class D airspace to be equipped with
ADS-B Out and ADS-B In equipment.
(2) Report and recommendations.--Not later than 1 year
after initiating the review and assessment under this
section, the ARAC shall submit to the Administrator--
(A) a report on the findings of the review and assessment
under paragraph (1); and
(B) any recommendations for legislative or regulatory
action the ARAC determines appropriate.
(3) Briefing.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the ARAC submits the report under paragraph (2), the
Administrator shall brief the appropriate committees of
Congress on--
(A) the findings and recommendations included in such
report; and
(B) any plan to implement such recommendations, including a
justification for any recommendations the Administrator
determines should not be implemented.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF MANNED ROTARY WING AIRCRAFT SAFETY
PROVISIONS.

Section 373(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2026 is repealed, and Chapter 157 of title
10, United States Code, shall be applied as if the amendments
made by such section had not been enacted.

SEC. 6. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE ARMY AUDIT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Inspector General of the Army
shall initiate an audit to evaluate the Army's coordination
with the FAA, pilot training, and qualification standards,
and the Army's use of ADS-B Out and whether it adheres to
Army policy, regulation, and law.
(b) Assessment.--In conducting the audit required by
subsection (a), the Inspector General of the Army shall
assess practices and recommendations for the Army,
including--
(1) whether Army policy and United States law was adhered
to, and the Army's coordination with the FAA, during National
Capital Region (``NCR'') operations of pilot training and
qualifications standards in the NCR;
(2) the Army's policy on ADS-B Out equipage, usage, and
activation;
(3) maintenance protocols for UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters
operated by the 12th Army Aviation Brigade including, but not
limited to, the calibration of any system that transmits
altitude and position information outside the aircraft and
the calibration of systems that send altitude and position
information to the pilots inside the aircraft, and the
frequency with which such maintenance protocols occur;
(4) compliance with the September 29, 2021, Letter of
Agreement executed between the Pentagon Heliport Air Traffic
Control Tower and the Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport Air Traffic Control Tower regarding flight operations
in the NCR; and
(5) the Army's review of loss of separation incidents
involving its rotorcraft in the NCR along with possible
mitigations to prevent future mishaps.
(c) Public Disclosure.--Not later than 14 days after the
audit required by subsection (a) is concluded, the Secretary
of the Army shall--
(1) transmit a report on the results of the audit, without
redactions, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) publicly release the report without redactions, except
to the extent required for national security reasons.
(d) Interim Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after
initiating the audit required by subsection (a), and every
180 days thereafter until such audit is concluded, the
Inspector General of the Army shall brief the committees of
Congress described in subsection (c)(1) regarding the
progress of such audit.

SEC. 7. SAFETY REVIEWS OF AIRSPACE.

(a) FAA-DOD Coordination.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
establish or designate an office within the FAA as the
``Office of FAA-DOD Coordination'' (in this section referred
to as the ``Office''), which shall--
(1) coordinate airspace usage of military aircraft and
rotorcraft with relevant FAA lines of business, including the
Air Traffic Organization;
(2) coordinate with the Office of Audit and Evaluation of
the FAA to ensure employee complaints and whistleblower
protections are considered;
(3) consider opportunities to improve management and
consolidation of aviation safety information system databases
to enhance

[[Page H2252]]

civil and military aviation incident reporting; and
(4) carry out the safety review required by subsection (b).
(b) Safety Reviews.--
(1) Review of ronald reagan washington national airport.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Office is established or designated, the
Administrator shall initiate a safety review of all military,
law enforcement, and civilian rotary wing, powered lift,
fixed wing, and unmanned aircraft system flight operations
and flight routes in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area, including but not limited to
flight operations conducted by the Department of Defense,
emergency response providers, and air medical transport
operators, to evaluate any associated safety risk to
commercial transport airplane operations at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport.
(B) Consultation.--In conducting a safety review under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consult with--
(i) the Secretary of Defense;
(ii) Federal, State, and local agencies;
(iii) law enforcement agencies;
(iv) emergency response providers, including air medical
transport operators;
(v) air carriers;
(vi) aviation labor organizations, including, at a
minimum--

(I) the exclusive bargaining representative of air traffic
controllers of the FAA certified under section 7511 of title
5, United States Code; and
(II) organizations representing certified collective
bargaining representatives of airline pilots, including the
principal organization representing the largest certified
collective bargaining representative of airline pilots; and

(vii) other stakeholders determined appropriate by the
Administrator.
(2) Other airport reviews.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct safety
reviews of all military, law enforcement and civilian rotary
wing, powered lift, fixed wing, and unmanned aircraft system
flight operations and flight routes at other Class B airports
(as listed in section 1 of Appendix D to part 91 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation))
and within the lateral boundary of Class B airspace, at
commercial service Class C airports (as listed in FAA Order
JO 7400.11J (or any successor order)) and within the lateral
boundary of Class C airspace in the national airspace system,
and at Class D airports that provide passenger service under
part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, determined
to meet the risk criteria set forth in subparagraph (C),
including flight operations conducted by the Department of
Defense, emergency response providers, and air medical
transport operators, to evaluate any associated safety risk
to commercial transport airplane operations.
(B) Consultation.--In conducting a safety review under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consult with--
(i) the Secretary of Defense;
(ii) Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies;
(iii) law enforcement agencies;
(iv) emergency response providers;
(v) air carriers;
(vi) aviation labor organizations, including, at a
minimum--

(vii) other stakeholders determined appropriate by the
Administrator.
(C) Prioritization and risk criteria.--In prioritizing the
safety reviews of Class B, Class C, and Class D airports
described in subparagraph (A) and conducting the safety
reviews pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall, at a minimum, consider the following risk criteria:
(i) The type of airspace the airport is located in and the
type of tower at the airport.
(ii) Whether the airport has radar on the field.
(iii) The total number of air traffic operations at the
airport per calendar year, as reported in the Operations
Network (OPSNET) data of the FAA, and the rate of growth
measured over a 20-year period prior to the initiation of a
safety review under this section.
(iv) The Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
resolution advisory rates at the airport compared to the
number of arrivals at the airport.
(v) The presence of parallel runways.
(vi) The presence of visual flights (in this subparagraph
referred to as ``VFR'') corridors in proximity to the
airport.
(vii) The presence of a helicopter corridor in proximity to
the airport or nearby helicopter operations.
(viii) The presence of dense VFR operations at the airport.
(ix) The presence of complex VFR procedures at the airport
or in the adjacent airspace.
(D) Deadline of initiation of reviews.--The Administrator
shall initiate the reviews under this paragraph by the
following deadlines:
(i) Class b airports.--With respect to Class B airports,
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
section.
(ii) Class c airports.--With respect to Class C airports,
not later than 90 days after the initiation date of the Class
B airport reviews.
(iii) Class d airports.--With respect to Class D airports,
not later than 90 days after the initiation date of the Class
C airport reviews.
(3) Requirements.--In conducting the safety reviews
required by paragraphs (1) and (2), the Office shall do the
following:
(A) Analyze air traffic and airspace management.
(B) Evaluate the level of coordination the Administrator
exercises with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of any
other Federal agencies, and emergency response providers as
appropriate, to inform the designation and approval of
airspace use and flight routes for non-transport airplane
operations.
(C) Assess any risks posed to transport airplanes from
military aircraft and rotorcraft, civil rotorcraft, powered
lift aircraft, and unmanned aircraft systems operating in
Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace in proximity to Class
B, Class C, or Class D airports.
(D) Review relevant incidents submitted to the
Administrator through Air Traffic Mandatory Occurrence
reports (as documented via FAA Form 7210-13), Aviation Safety
Reporting System reports, and Aviation Safety Action Program
reports, and relevant reports submitted to the Administrator
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through
the Aviation Safety Reporting System, to identify any safety
trends regarding the operation of military aircraft and
rotorcraft, civil rotorcraft, powered lift aircraft, and
unmanned aircraft systems in Class B, Class C, or Class D
airspace near Class B, Class C, or Class D airports.
(4) Deadlines for completion of safety reviews.--
(A) Ronald reagan washington national airport.--The
Administrator shall complete the safety review required by
paragraph (1) not later than 120 days after the date on which
such review is initiated.
(B) Other airports.--The Administrator shall complete a
safety review required by paragraph (2) not later than 180
days after such review is initiated.
(5) Reports.--
(A) Review of ronald reagan washington national airport.--
Not later than 60 days after completing the safety review
required by paragraph (1), the Administrator shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report detailing the
analyses and results of such review, together with relevant
findings and recommendations, including any corrective action
plans to address any risks identified, and recommendations
for legislative or administrative action determined
appropriate by the Administrator.
(B) Other airport reviews.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this section, and every 6 months
thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report detailing the analyses and
results of the safety reviews completed pursuant to paragraph
(2) since the preceding report under this subparagraph (or,
in the case of the first such report, since such date of
enactment), together with relevant findings and
recommendations, including any corrective action plans to
address any risks identified, and recommendations for
legislative or administrative actions determined appropriate
by the Administrator.
(6) Designation.--The Administrator shall designate a
person within the Senior Executive Service of the FAA to be
directly responsible for the completion of the requirements
of this subsection.
(7) Staffing.--The Administrator shall ensure adequate
staffing to conduct the safety reviews within the deadlines
specified in this section.

SEC. 8. FAA-DOD SAFETY INFORMATION SHARING.

(a) MOU With the Department of the Army.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this section, the
Administrator shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Secretary of the Army to permit, as appropriate, the
sharing of information from the Army's Safety Management
Information System with the FAA, as well as the sharing of
information from the FAA's Aviation Safety Information
Analysis and Sharing System, Operational Analysis Reporting
System, Safety Trend Analytics Dashboard, Aviation Risk
Identification and Assessment Program, Comprehensive
Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting Tool, and Falcon tool
with the Army, to facilitate communications and analysis of
any applicable impacts to the safety and efficiency of civil
aviation operations and to mitigate risk in the national
airspace system.
(b) Other DOD MOUs.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the following
military departments to permit, as appropriate, the sharing
of information from applicable aviation safety information
systems to facilitate communications and analysis of any
applicable impacts to the safety and efficiency of civil
aviation operations and to mitigate risk in the national
airspace system:
(1) The Department of the Navy.
(2) The Department of the Air Force.
(3) The Coast Guard.
(c) Congressional Notification.--Not later than 7 days
after the date on which the

[[Page H2253]]

Administrator enters into any Memorandum of Understanding
under subsection (a) or (b), the Administrator shall notify
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--For purposes of subsection (b) of section
1046 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 49 U.S.C. 40101
note), the Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of
Defense and the FAA entered into on May 10, 2024, is deemed
to be notice jointly submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees for purposes of such subsection and
subsection (a) of such section shall cease to be effective as
of such date.
(b) Update and Effect of Memorandum of Agreement.--
(1) Update.--The Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of Defense shall update the memorandum of
understanding described in subsection (a) consistent with
regulations issued by the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration pursuant to section 3(a)(2).
(2) Effect of memorandum of agreement.--The memorandum of
agreement described in subsection (a) shall remain in force
subject to--
(A) any modifications made jointly by the Secretary of
Transportation and the Secretary of Defense;
(B) termination by either such Secretary; or
(C) modification or termination by law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.

general leave

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in the Record on S. 2503.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, aviation has been in my blood for my entire life, and it
continues to be something that I love very much.
In the middle of my family farm in Tarkio, Missouri, is the Gould
Peterson Municipal Airport, which is named after my uncle. Growing up,
when my brother and I weren't doing chores on the farm, we would do
anything we could at the airport just to mooch a ride. That love of
aviation and being a professional pilot has never left me.
When I came to Congress in 2001, I joined the Transportation
Committee to work on these issues, and it has been extremely rewarding.
Being a pilot has provided me with an invaluable insight into these
issues.
Throughout the years, I have worked on several pieces of legislation
that addressed safety gaps following unimaginable tragedies. Every
aviation accident typically has multiple contributing factors. Too
often, I have seen Congress act prematurely and in a way that fails to
address multilayered causes of accidents in a comprehensive and
consensus-driven manner, in some instances to the detriment of
fostering sound safety policy that prevents unintended consequences.
That is why I have long believed that the best way to honor victims
of aviation accidents is for Congress to wait until the NTSB completes
its investigation so that Congress first has all the facts.
On January 29, 2025, an Army helicopter collided with an American
Airlines flight while on final approach to Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport. The fatal collision claimed the lives of all 67
passengers and crew in both aircraft.
The NTSB, along with their Federal partners and law enforcement
agencies, jumped into action that cold January night. Over the last
year, the NTSB carried out one of the most impressive and comprehensive
investigations that I have seen, and I thank the NTSB for their
dedicated work over the past year.
The NTSB officially concluded its investigation and issued its final
report last week, including numerous findings, the probable cause, and
50 recommendations to ensure that this doesn't occur again.
It is my deeply rooted respect for the NTSB's investigations and
processes that has led me to believe that S. 2503 does not sufficiently
or properly address the findings and recommendations of the Board.
That is why, last Friday, I joined together with Transportation
Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen, Armed Services Committee Chairman
Rogers, and Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Smith to introduce
the ALERT Act.
The ALERT Act is a comprehensive package of improvements that
addresses all 50 safety recommendations issued by the NTSB. Unlike the
bill before us today, the ALERT Act tackles all the identified root
causes that led to this deadly crash.
Unfortunately, the ROTOR Act, or this piece of legislation, touches
on only two of the NTSB's 50 recommendations and provides an overly
prescriptive approach to mandating a specific technology, which is
still largely under development, in a manner that can prove burdensome
to some operators and create burdens to its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that we have been down this road
before. We have been in this position before. Congress mandated the
exact technology prescribed in the ROTOR Act in 2012. Due to the lack
of maturity of the technology and scalable applications that can
benefit a broad range of operators, the mandate proved to be so
unworkable that the body had to repeal that mandate in 2018.
Sadly, many of the considerations that led Congress to repeal that
mandate still exist today. Don't just take my word for it. Listen to
the words of an NTSB Board member, who said in their final report:
``While we laud ADS-B systems as an emerging technology in commercial
fixed-wing and rotorcraft aviation that could have prevented this
accident, it is still exactly that, an emerging technology. There are
still technological barriers to implementing ADS-B In into the 5,500
commercial aircraft that are in the skies at any given moment.''
Mr. Speaker, let me be extremely clear. As a pilot myself, I
unequivocally support the adoption of safety enhancement technologies,
and I want to get this right. Ultimately, any successful directive or
mandate from Congress will be calculated, scalable, and future-proof,
not a blanket mandate that limits the aviation community to one
technology. We tried this before, and it failed, leading to no tangible
safety benefit.
Mr. Speaker, my greatest fear is that passage of this legislation
today in its current form will unintentionally lead to an operational
crisis in 2031 and force future Congresses to have the same debate on
the need to repeal another unworkable government mandate.
It is that concern that informed the approach that we took in the
bipartisan ALERT Act. By implementing a performance-based and
technology-agnostic approach, aircraft would be able to be equipped
with the appropriate collision mitigation system, thereby enhancing
awareness for all.
Mr. Speaker, while I rise in opposition to this bill, I know that all
Members of this body across the Capitol have a shared priority, and
that is commitment to aviation safety. It was that shared priority that
brought us together last Congress to pass the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2024, which was a landmark piece of legislation that is improving
aviation safety and providing benefits to the flying public.
Here in the House, we will continue our legislative effort around the
bipartisan ALERT Act to ensure that all NTSB recommendations are
addressed, and that is coming.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last month marked the 1-year anniversary of the D.C.
midair collision where a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with
American Airlines Flight 5342 near Washington National Airport, or DCA,
tragically claiming all 67 lives aboard both aircraft.
It was the first mass-casualty commercial plane accident in the
United

[[Page H2254]]

States in nearly 16 years and marked the end of one of the longest
streaks without such an accident in U.S. history.

{time} 1650

This devastating accident is a stark reminder that we have to remain
vigilant in our pursuit of aviation safety. More can always be done to
make air travel safer. We owe it to the victims, to their families, and
to the flying public to leave no stone unturned and to learn every
lesson we can.
I thank the friends and families of the victims. Their presence keeps
loved ones' memories alive, and their advocacy reminds us to focus on
this unwavering pursuit of improving aviation safety.
After the D.C. accident, the National Transportation Safety Board
started its thorough investigation. Like every accident, the House
waited for the NTSB's final report and recommendations. Now, we do that
deliberately to give the agency's investigators the room to pursue
every lead and vet every theory, especially when it comes to complex
accidents.
This patience proved to be prudent. For instance, the hypothesis that
ADS-B In coupled with the right interface could have given more warning
was in fact correct.
However, some of the NTSB's initial theories about ADS-B Out usage
were ultimately not included as part of the probable cause.
Allowing NTSB investigators to pull on threads and test their
theories is important, and it is why the House did not rush an
investigation but instead allowed for the final conclusions from the
entire Board.
When it comes to the ROTOR Act, I appreciate the urgency to act on
the safety gaps in our aviation system. Although I disagree with the
ROTOR Act's approach and have concerns about how it executes, both the
ROTOR Act and the ALERT Act--the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Committee on Armed Services' response to the
D.C. accident--seek to respond to this tragedy in their own ways.
While I know some have attempted to pit the bills against each other,
suggesting there could only be one right bill to respond to the
tragedy, we all do want the same thing. As the chair of the full
committee said, we want to make our skies safer.
The ROTOR Act responded first before the NTSB's investigation was
complete. As a result, it only addresses a few of NTSB's final 50
recommendations. All of the NTSB's recommendations are important and
deserve to be considered by Congress and implemented by the respective
Federal agencies. Bypassing the House's regular order and forcing the
ROTOR Act through this typically deliberative process doesn't get us to
this goal.
That brings me to the ALERT Act, the comprehensive bipartisan House
response to the NTSB's recommendations on the D.C. midair collision.
Chair Graves of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Chair Rogers of the Committee on Armed Services, Ranking Member Smith,
and I introduced this bill.
The ALERT Act was bipartisan from its inception and emerged from
productive and good-faith collaboration between the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Armed Services.
It also builds on the ROTOR Act's momentum and tackles many of the
issues the ROTOR Act does not address. For instance, the ROTOR Act's
ADS-B In mandate doesn't apply to military aircraft since the FAA
Administration equipage requirements don't apply to military aircraft.
The ALERT Act does.
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure purposely
partnered with the House Committee on Armed Services to make sure that
both the FAA and the Department of Defense have strong ADS-B
requirements. The D.C. midair tragedy involved both the FAA and the
DOD. Consequently, the solution needs to involve both of the
committees.
Through that partnership, the ALERT Act is truly comprehensive. It
works to address all 50 recommendations.
Now, the excellent work of the NTSB investigators provided a thorough
report that identified many--not just one--goals which Congress has to
now pursue. The ALERT Act is the necessary response and narrowly
focuses on the NTSB recommendations. Each provision can be tied to one
or more of the NTSB recommendations and corresponding findings.
To the critics of the ALERT Act, I just say that legislating is a
collaborative process. A bill is introduced as a draft until it is
passed, and until then, all feedback is welcome.
Upon introduction, we immediately requested that the NTSB and FAA
provide feedback, and we have solicited stakeholder input from many
folks to ensure that we get the ALERT Act's swift implementation. We
are still getting feedback. The ALERT Act works to address all of the
NTSB recommendations. These recommendations deserve full consideration
by Congress.
In the meantime, the ROTOR Act and the vote before us this week
address just a small percentage of these recommendations.
Now, the NTSB has nearly 200 outstanding aviation recommendations,
dating back to the year 2000. If the ROTOR Act passes as is, all we are
doing is adding 45 or more recommendations to this long list that
Congress has already not acted on.
If the Speaker can, in fact, promise the Senate that the Senate gets
a vote on their bill--that only partially addresses the tragedy--then I
certainly hope the Office of the Speaker can promise a floor vote on
the one bipartisan joint committee House bill that comprehensively
addresses all of the issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
The bill before us today is a flawed response to last year's tragic
midair collision at Reagan National. First and foremost, this bill will
undermine our national security.

The Department of War just released the following statement regarding
the bill: ``As currently drafted, enactment [of this bil] would create
significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks
affecting national defense activities.''
Let's talk about those operational security risks. The ROTOR Act
requires ADS-B, which is a beacon signal, In and Out to be transmitted
on all aircraft in the national airspace, including Department of War
aircraft performing sensitive missions.
ADS-B systems transmit information on the location, speed, and
direction of aircraft over unencrypted, open channels. Websites like
FlightAware then post that information for all the world to see.
Since 2018, certain military aircraft have been exempt from
broadcasting that information pursuant to a memorandum of agreement
between the FAA and the Pentagon. The ROTOR Act overrides that MOA with
the FAA rulemaking. The FAA, not the Pentagon or our military
commanders, will have the final say on which military aircraft must be
equipped with ADS-B and when it must be turned on. That is
unacceptable.
Requiring our fighters, bombers, and highly classified assets to
regularly broadcast their location puts our men and women in uniform at
risk by exposing operational planning, aircraft details, and patterns
of life to our adversaries.
Now, we can all agree that certain military aircraft should be
equipped with and transmit the ADS-B signal, especially in congested
civilian airspace. Fortunately, the current MOU already provides for
that. At this time, nearly all Army helicopters flying in congested
airspace are equipped with ADS-B Out and have been instructed to
transmit.
The problem is the ROTOR Act goes much further than these aircraft,
undermining the operational security of our fighters, bombers, and
aircraft on classified missions. For obvious reasons, we do not want
our enemies to know where our bombers or fighters are or where they are
headed.

[[Page H2255]]

Beyond the serious national security impacts of the ROTOR Act, the
bill fails to address nearly 90 percent of the recommendations made by
the NTSB.
Over 40 critical air safety recommendations are left out of this
bill. This includes important recommendations for the Department of
War, such as increased coordination between the military and the FAA on
aircraft safety matters, better safety management systems and reporting
for military aircraft, and enhanced training for military pilots
operating in congested airspace.
All of these flaws can be easily fixed if the committees of
jurisdiction in the House are afforded the opportunity to follow
regular order and consider an alternative bill.
I have joined Chairman Graves and Ranking Members Larsen and Smith to
introduce the bipartisan ALERT Act that will fix the flaws of the ROTOR
Act, but our legislation goes much farther than the ROTOR Act to
improve aviation safety by addressing all 50 of the NTSB
recommendations. It will also ensure our military can continue to carry
out sensitive operations that are crucial to our defense and to our
Nation.
The Department of War is requesting these changes be made before the
ROTOR Act is signed into law. If we defeat this bill, we can have the
ALERT Act on the floor the very next day. We can reconcile the
differences with the Senate and get the bill to the President the next
week.
The House of Representatives should not send a bill to the President
that has no input from the House, especially a bill this impactful to
our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose the bill.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2503, the ROTOR
Act.
Last year's January 29 midair collision at Reagan National Airport
tragically took 67 lives, but it was preventable. It is our duty to do
everything we can to keep this tragedy from ever happening again.
This bill would implement a central recommendation from the NTSB's
final report on the collision: a requirement to use Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast technology, ADS-B Out and In.
NTSB has recommended an ADS-B In requirement 17 times before.
NTSB's final report said that the ADS-B In would have alerted the
flight crew 59 seconds before the collision and the helicopter crew 48
seconds before.

{time} 1700

ADS-B In would have given those pilots a fighting chance to avoid the
disaster. It is high time that ADS-B Out and In are required in our
Nation's busiest airspaces like the national capital region.
Passing the ROTOR Act is the strongest first step we can take for
ensuring a safer airspace for the flying public today to improve
aviation safety and prevent a future crash at DCA.
I thank Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking Member Smith,
and Chairman Rogers for the comprehensive draft legislation they
released last week addressing the systemic causes of the January 2025
collision.
Their ALERT Act of 2026 improves important must-pass provisions. We
need to reevaluate the arrival rate at National Airport. We need to
improve our helicopter route charts. We need to limit military
helicopter flights in our region. But Congress must pass the ROTOR Act
this week to mandate that pilots have access to ADS-B In and Out as
soon as possible.
Then we must immediately work to advance the ALERT Act of 2026 while
reconciling any differences in a way that maximizes aviation safety to
ensure that all of the recommendations of the NTSB can be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the families of flight 5342 who have been a
driving force for the ROTOR Act and for aviation safety reform. These
families have been advocates, experts, and champions all in the face of
tremendous loss. It has been an honor to work with them.
Passing the ROTOR Act is the first and strongest step that Congress
must take to immediately give pilots another key tool to prevent
collisions and begin saving lives now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the ROTOR Act and soon
the ALERT Act of 2026.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Nehls).
Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the legislation
before us, the ROTOR Act.
The ROTOR Act seeks to fulfill a longstanding recommendation from the
National Transportation Safety Board to require ADS-B In technology on
aircraft operating in our national airspace system. That recommendation
reflects years of accident investigation and careful analysis.
But we must also recognize that this bill does not alone close the
book on aviation safety. The NTSB recently released its final report on
the DCA midair collision, which contains 50 safety recommendations.
There is much more work to be done to address them comprehensively and
thoughtfully.
We must also be cognizant of the feasibility of implementing the
ROTOR Act for all national airspace system users. Safety mandates must
be achievable in the real world. Small aircraft operators and regional
jet operators could face significant challenges integrating new
equipment, particularly if the Federal Aviation Administration were to
insist on a fully integrated control panel solution. Costs, downtime,
and certification hurdles are not abstract concerns. They are real
burdens for operators working on tight margins.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The time of
the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, flexibility will be crucial to ensure that
all operators can be equipped with available situational awareness
tools, including portable technologies and electronic flight bag
solutions. I believe this will achieve the broadest implementation and
the greatest safety benefits in the most efficient and effective manner
possible.
The ROTOR Act isn't perfect. No bill ever is. But I remain committed
to working with my colleagues to strengthen aviation safety without
placing unnecessary burdens on those we depend on to keep America
flying.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
Mr. AMO. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Spencer and Christine Lane
of Barrington, Rhode Island, whose lives were tragically taken on
January 29, 2025, in the midair collision that claimed 67 lives.
I have spoken with Doug Lane and other families who are mourning
their family members who passed away in this tragic incident. They
shared the pain that their families carry from this heartbreaking
event.
For years, there were warnings. Since 2008, the National
Transportation Safety Board has recommended requiring technology to
help pilots detect nearby aircraft in real time and avoid collisions.
The ROTOR Act finally acts on that recommendation by requiring
technology to help avoid collisions, aligning military and civilian
safety standards, strengthening coordination and closing dangerous gaps
in our aviation system. We must act now to make our skies safer.
For the Lane family, for the 67 lives lost and their families, for
every passenger and crew member in our skies, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Onder).
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, the ROTOR Act is an urgent piece of
legislation that implements proven technology to help pilots see the
real-time location of other aircraft. Had it been law, it would have
prevented the needless loss of 67 lives in last January's DCA crash.
In the past 15 years, there have been an average of at least one near
miss per month at DCA. Since 2008, the National Transportation Safety
Board has recommended 18 times that all aircraft install ADS-B
equipment that allows pilots to see and be seen when flying in busy
airspace.
NTSB Chair Hormendy testified if the ROTOR Act had been the law last

[[Page H2256]]

January, the jet and the helicopter would have had nearly a minute of
advanced warning and the crash would have been prevented.
The ROTOR Act's ADS-B requirement is neither expensive nor
burdensome. General aviation can meet the requirement with a receiver
like this one that costs about $400, roughly the cost of a routine oil
change for most planes.

American Airlines has installed ADS-B for about $50,000 per plane
with only 1 to 2 days of downtime.
ROTOR's ADS-B requirement applies only to our Nation's busiest
airspace, not to pilots flying in rural America. The families of flight
5342 are here today to support the ROTOR Act so that what they
needlessly suffered will never happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the ROTOR Act.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
ROTOR Act. I thank the sponsor as well.
On January 29, 2025, a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and American
Airlines flight 5342 collided midair outside of DCA, and 67 lives were
lost.
Among the victims were families from my community in northern
Virginia. We lost children, parents, and members of the ice-skating
community. These folks had their whole lives ahead of them. It is a
tragedy that has had a profound and lasting impact on our community and
our Nation.
This week, the families of the victims are here on Capitol Hill, and
I got to speak with them today. They have one message for us: Pass the
ROTOR Act.
The ROTOR Act addresses the glaring holes in aviation safety around
DCA that allowed this completely preventable accident to happen. It
does so by requiring military and civilian aircraft in busy airspace to
broadcast and receive real-time traffic information.
Having been more than a year since the collision, it is time for
there to be real accountability and change. We must ensure that nothing
like this ever happens again, and people don't fear flying.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

{time} 1710

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Estes).
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 67 lives that we lost on
January 29, 2025. After months of investigative work, the NTSB
uncovered systemic failures that culminated in the fateful midair
collision between an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a passenger
aircraft.
The flight originated from my hometown of Wichita, Kansas. Our
community was shocked by the tragedy, and I am heartbroken that several
Kansans were among the victims. No family should ever have to endure
that heartbreak.
It is imperative that we work in Congress to ensure tragedies like
this never happen again and that our skies are the safest in the world.
We must build back the layers of safety that failed that night.
I am grateful for the work of the NTSB and the Senate, and I realize
there is always more that can and should be done to enhance aviation
safety. I look forward to continuing this important work that honors
their lives and makes our skies safer. Flying in the United States is
the safest of anywhere in the world, but we must continue to identify
and implement ways to make it safer.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, may I again inquire about how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Obernolte), who is also the Research and Technology
Subcommittee chair.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
ROTOR Act.
This bill is a well-intentioned response to the horrific airline
accident last year at DCA. In the months since the accident, it has
become clear that the accident would have been prevented had the
helicopter that was involved in the collision been broadcasting its
position and its speed through the ADS-B Out system.
This bill would indeed fix that. However, this bill imposes a costly
mandate that every aircraft within the system implement a technology
called ADS-B In.
Mr. Speaker, most of the aircraft that would be affected by this
bill, those with a takeoff weight of over 12,500 pounds, already have
superior technology for collision avoidance called TCAS II.
Mr. Speaker, this is technology that works at all airports. At most
of the general aviation airports in my district, ADS-B Out will not
work near the ground, Mr. Speaker, because you have to be receiving air
traffic control signals for it to work. TCAS II works at all of those
airports.
Moreover, since the ROTOR Act was introduced months ago before the
NTSB report was released, it does not implement many of the
recommendations in that report.
Chairman Graves has a far superior bill called the ALERT Act that
addresses all 50 of those recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject the ROTOR Act today and to quickly
pass the ALERT Act, conference those changes with the Senate, and get
it on the President's desk for signature.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity
to speak on the ROTOR Act and on the ALERT Act. I really appreciate the
bipartisan work and joint committee work done here in the U.S. House to
produce the ALERT Act, the comprehensive response to the tragic DCA air
crash.
I look forward to continue working with the T&I Committee and the
House Armed Services Committee to bring that bill into markup in
committees and onto the floor as soon as possible if we are allowed to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the question: Why are we here?
With something this important, with something that has so much
consequence, why hasn't the House been given any opportunity to be a
part of this bill?
You have to ask the question, Mr. Speaker: Why are we running this on
suspension where it can't be amended or it can't be made better? It
makes absolutely no sense that with something this important that the
House doesn't have any input whatsoever. I can't stress enough just how
wrong that is.
As I noted before, I live and breathe aviation.
I have seen what happens when aviation goes wrong. I have lost
several very close friends to accidents over the years, most recently
at the Wings Over Dallas midair collision that occurred in 2022.
Throughout my congressional career, I have always believed in
fostering sound policy with a carefully deliberative and consensus-
driven approach. That approach is critical to getting the safety
outcomes that we all desire.
Aviation policy is enormously complex and deserves the full
deliberation of Congress to ensure that we get it right. It certainly
deserves some House input into the legislation.
I am extremely disappointed that the House has been denied any
opportunity to express its will on such a consequential piece of
legislation. I am going to say it again: There has been no House input.
I fear this will set a terrible precedent that the will of the House
and the expertise of our committees will not be allowed an opportunity
for meaningful input.
For these reasons and the reasons I stated previously, I will,
regretfully, be voting against this legislation. I cannot say this
enough: This is not a vote against safety. I continue to pray for the
victims and their families, and I understand that they are motivated to
prevent anyone else from having to experience what they are going
through.
I simply want to get this right, and I believe that we can absolutely
do that by allowing the House and Senate to work together to ensure a
tragedy like this never happens again.

[[Page H2257]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the terrible midair
collision at DCA on January 29, 2025. I continue to mourn the loss of
67 people who died because of this tragedy, including Asra Hussain,
from Carmel, Indiana. The House needs to pass a comprehensive,
bipartisan solution that will implement all 50 of the NTSB's
recommendations, and which provides a holistic framework for
meaningful, system-wide safety improvements.
I commend my Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and
Ranking Member, Sam Graves and Rick Larsen. They worked tirelessly to
produce a bill that will implement all 50 safely recommendations from
the NTSB, which just released their final report on January 29th. As
the Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I'm proud to join them
as an original cosponsor of the ALERT Act, with our colleagues from the
Armed Services Committee, Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Adam
Smith, and many other colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, the House needs to follow regular order. Today's bill
was added to the suspension calendar over the concerns of the Chairs
and Ranking Members of the Committees of Jurisdiction. This bill has
been mysteriously held and stuck at the desk since December--without
being referred to the Transportation Committee or the Armed Services
Committees for consideration, markup, and amendments. Yet, as soon as
our two committees introduced a comprehensive safety bill, the Speaker
green lights the other chamber's bill to fly off the desk and bypass
our committees. That's not regular order, and it's not right. Our
carefully crafted joint Transportation and Armed Services bill should
not be railroaded out of floor consideration because of some backroom
deal. Under regular order, our Committee should be able to bring our
House bill, the ALERT Act, to the House floor before a Senate bill is
pushed ahead of us. Especially when it's an incomplete bill.
Unlike the ALERT Act, which implements every one of NTSB's safety
recommendations, the ROTOR Act addresses just seven of the 50
recommendations. While the ROTOR Act is a good first step, it doesn't
fix the massive systemic problems that resulted in a crash that was 100
percent preventable. Safety is too important to break the rules and
ignore regular order. I urge the Speaker to refer this bill to our
Committee for consideration and markup.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 2503.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________