[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25990-25996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR RECOMMITTAL OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2115, FLIGHT 
              100--CENTURY OF AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 377

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the 
     conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend 
     title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, is 
     hereby recommitted to the committee of conference.

                              {time}  1830

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 377 is a rule providing for the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 2115, the Flight 100-Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act to be recommitted to the conference 
committee. In an effort to ensure support for the bill, the House 
committees of jurisdiction have committed to making this important 
legislation even better through another conference.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for 
his extraordinary leadership on this issue, as well as the other 
Members who have worked hard to make this a reality as we continue to 
address the concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 2115, the FAA 
Reauthorization Act, is not quite ready for prime time. The good news 
is that the conference report is complete. The bad news is that there 
is no way it can pass the House in its current form. That is why we are 
here today. By voting for this rule, the House will send this 
conference report back to the conference committee for further 
consideration, an action that is sorely needed.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we need to recommit this conference report 
back to the conference committee is simple: There are three major 
provisions in this bill that will undermine efforts to protect the 
American public, while weakening our country's competitive position in 
the international air cargo markets.
  The first and most obvious problem with the conference report is the 
provision that would allow for the immediate privatization of 69 air 
traffic control towers, with the authority to privatize all other air 
traffic control towers after 4 years. If this provision becomes law, it 
will begin the dismantling of the air traffic control system as we know 
it. We cannot allow our air traffic control system to be farmed out to 
the lowest bidder. Safety must come first, and we cannot do it on the 
cheap. Members on both sides of the aisle feel so strongly about this 
provision that they have pledged to vote against the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, FAA controllers responded magnificently during the 
tragic terrorist attacks of September 11. They successfully landed 
4,482 aircraft within 2 hours without a single operational error. Their 
performance on that fateful day earned them the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's highest award for achievement. But the fact of the 
matter is they did an outstanding job before 9/11, and they have 
continued to do so every day since.
  The FAA controllers and technicians are a highly-skilled group of 
dedicated professionals who deserve better than to be discarded just 2 
short years after the world became so familiar with the challenges that 
they face. This conference report does not accord them the respect and 
the gratitude that they have earned and so rightly deserve.
  Contrary to the various claims that have been made, this provision 
would not just affect airports that exclusively serve general aviation 
aircraft. Eighteen of the airports included in the list of 69 airports 
that could be privatized are served by commercial carriers. This 
includes Hanscom Airfield in my home State of Massachusetts, which is 
served by several commercial carriers, including Continental, Delta and 
Northwest. But even more alarming is the fact that 11 of these 69 air 
towers are among the 50 busiest in the country.
  Now, as misguided as this provision is, the way it magically appeared 
in the conference report is just as galling. Not only was the provision 
not included in either bill passed by the House or the Senate, it runs 
completely counter to language in both the House and Senate bills that 
expressly prohibited the privatization of air traffic control. Yet, the 
conference committee, acting on orders from the White House, defied the 
wishes of the Members who serve in both Chambers and snuck this unwise, 
special-interest provision into the conference report.
  This tactic, Mr. Speaker, is a new favorite of the Republican 
leadership. They ignore what the full House and full Senate have done, 
and secretly rewrite important bills in some back room. It is a 
terrible way to do the people's business. It makes a mockery of the 
legislative process and confirms the most cynical suspicions people 
have about how this Congress operates.
  And it gets worse. A last minute one-word change in the conference 
report has changed antiterrorism training for flight crews from 
mandatory to discretionary. The Homeland Security Act of

[[Page 25991]]

2002 directed the Transportation Security Administration to issue 
security training guidelines for flight crews. Section 603 of the FAA 
conference report guts this directive in order to give air carriers the 
authority to establish such training requirements.
  The TSA has developed the training for Federal flight deck officers 
and the Federal air marshals. It only makes sense that the TSA should 
be responsible for developing the antiterrorism training for flight 
attendants so that there is a coordinated response from the entire 
flight crew in the event of a terrorist attack. To do anything less, 
Mr. Speaker, is to place special interests above passenger and crew 
safety, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
  The third and final provision of this conference report that must be 
fixed is the giveaway exemption that will allow foreign airlines to 
carry air cargo between two U.S. domestic points, provided one of those 
domestic points is in Alaska and only in Alaska. There is no similar 
exemption for international air cargo going through Hawaii, Florida or 
California; just Alaska.
  This provision represents an unprecedented change in U.S. 
transportation policy that for 200 years has protected domestic point-
to-point service from foreign competition. No other country in the 
world grants U.S. carriers the kind of open access to its domestic 
transportation network that this provision would grant to foreign 
carriers operating in the United States. It is unfathomable that we 
would make such a dramatic change to long-standing transportation 
policy without a single hearing or a minute of debate.
  Now, make no mistake, the Alaska cargo provision will add the U.S. 
aviation industry to manufacturing, textiles and other sectors of our 
economy that are hemorrhaging jobs to other countries. The U.S. airline 
industry has seen losses of $7 billion per year since September 11, 
resulting in the layoffs of 150,000 American workers.
  This provision will do nothing but harm our efforts to help the U.S. 
aviation industry recover, while widening the gaping holes that already 
exist in our homeland security with respect to screening air cargo.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the conference committee not 
just meet to strip the privatization provision, an action that will not 
fully fix the problem, but that the conference actually reconvene and 
address all of the flaws now contained in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and send this 
conference report back to the conference committee, where, hopefully 
this time, the will of the House will be respected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as Representative of one of the largest rural districts 
east of the Mississippi and cochairman of the Rural Congressional 
Caucus, I rise today because I feel an obligation to uphold the will of 
the House, which seems to have been bypassed in this report.
  Just several months ago, we had an amendment on the floor here that 
removed a provision that forced rural airports to pay a portion of up 
to 10 percent of the essential air service that helps them provide 
service in difficult times. The House removed it; the Senate removed 
it. Today, it is back here.
  Now, it is limited to 10 communities and it will not hurt as many, 
but it is very possible that for these 10 communities, it could cost 
over $100,000.
  Rural airports have a very limited income stream. They do not have 
much means of income. They are fortunate to have money to match Federal 
money to pave their runways, fix their lights and run the airport.
  So I ask that if this bill is recommitted to conference for other 
issues, and many other rural Members strongly urge the committee 
leadership, to remove Section 408, the Essential Air Service Local 
Participation Pilot Program, from this provision. I personally will 
find it extremely difficult, and many other rural Members will too, to 
support the conference report, and I do not want to be in that 
position.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record copies of letters signed by 48 
House Members and 16 Senators.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2003.
     Hon. John McCain,
      Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Fritz Hollings,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Oberstar,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member 
     Oberstar, Ranking Member Hollings: We write out of grave 
     concern for a provision added to the Vision 100--Century of 
     Aviation Reauthorization Conference Report regarding the 
     adoption of a local cost share for certain Essential Air 
     Service communities. This addition to the conference report 
     not only goes against the will of both the House and the 
     Senate, but may also have a disastrous effect on many of our 
     small rural airports. Therefore, we urge the conference 
     committee to remove this language before bringing the report 
     to the respective floors for a vote.
       As you know, the local cost share provision was removed in 
     H.R. 2115 by an amendment offered by Representatives McHugh, 
     Peterson (PA) and Shuster, which passed by a voice vote. 
     Likewise, a similar local cost share provision was removed 
     from S. 824 by an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman.
       It is our understanding that negotiations are currently 
     under way to remove language from the conference report 
     regarding the privatization of air traffic controllers. This 
     provides the conference committee an excellent opportunity to 
     remove the EAS local match provision that was already 
     stricken on both the House and Senate floors and not included 
     in either bill brought to the conference committee.
       Additionally, this provision will have untold effects on 
     many small rural communities. It is unacceptable to force 
     communities to pay up to $100,000 in a local cost share, in 
     addition to the many costs they currently incur in running a 
     small local airport.
       We respectfully request the removal of Section 408 from the 
     Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     Conference Report before it is brought to the House and 
     Senate floors for consideration and we look forward to 
     working with you in the future to ensure rural communities 
     continue to receive essential air service.
           Sincerely,
         John E. Peterson, Allen Boyd, Tom Osborne, Nick Rahall, 
           Phil English, Max Burns, Bud Cramer, Earl Pomeroy, 
           Steve Pearce, Ray LaHood, James A. Leach, ------ ------
           , Lincoln Davis, ------ ------, Michael H. Michaud.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2003.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Oberstar,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: We write out of grave concern for a provision 
     added to the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization 
     conference report regarding the adoption of a local cost 
     share for certain Essential Air Service communities. This 
     addition to the conference report not only goes against the 
     will of both the House and the Senate, but may also have a 
     disastrous effect on many of our small rural airports. 
     Therefore, we urge the conference committee to remove this 
     language before bringing the report to the respective floors 
     for a vote.
       The local cost share provision was removed from S. 824 by a 
     bipartisan amendment offered by 15 senators, which passed on 
     a voice vote. Likewise, a similar local cost share provision 
     was removed from H.R. 2115 by an amendment offered by 
     Representatives McHugh, Peterson (PA) and Shuster.
       It is our understanding that negotiations are currently 
     under way to remove language from the conference report 
     regarding the privatization of air traffic controllers. This 
     provides the conference committee an excellent opportunity to 
     remove the EAS local match provision that was already 
     stricken on both the House and Senate floors and not included

[[Page 25992]]

     in either bill brought to the conference committee.
       Additionally, this provision will have untold effects on 
     many small rural communities. It is unacceptable to force 
     communities to pay up to $100,000 in a local cost share, in 
     addition to the many costs they currently incur in running a 
     small local airport.
       We respectfully request the removal of Section 408 from the 
     Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     conference report before it is brought to the House and 
     Senate floors for consideration, and we look forward to 
     working with you in the future to ensure rural communities 
     continue to receive essential air service.
           Sincerely,
         Jeff Bingaman, Olympia Snowe, Hillary Rodham Clinton, 
           Patrick Leahy, Blanche L. Lincoln, Jim Jeffords, Mark 
           Pryor, Tom Udall, Charles Schumer, Jim Daschle, Arlen 
           Specter, E. Benjamin Nelson, Susan M. Collins, Chuck 
           Grassley, Mark Dayton, Chuck Hagel.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2003.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Fritz Hollings,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Oberstar,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member 
     Oberstar, Ranking Member Hollings: We write out of grave 
     concern for a provision added to the Vision 100--Century of 
     Aviation Reauthorization Conference Report regarding the 
     adoption of a local cost share for certain Essential Air 
     Service communities. This addition to the conference report 
     not only goes against the will of both the House and Senate, 
     but may also have a disastrous effect on many of our small 
     rural airports. Therefore, we urge the conference committee 
     to remove this language before bringing the report to the 
     respective floors for a vote.
       As you know, the local cost share provision was removed in 
     H.R. 2115 by an amendment offered by Representatives McHugh, 
     Peterson (PA) and Shuster, which passed by a voice vote. 
     Likewise, a similar local cost share provision was removed 
     from S. 824 by an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman.
       It is our understanding that negotiations are currently 
     under way to remove language from the conference report 
     regarding the privatization of air traffic controllers. This 
     provides the conference committee an excellent opportunity to 
     remove the EAS local match provision that was already 
     stricken on both the House and Senate floors and not included 
     in either bill brought to the conference committee.
       Additionally, this provision will have untold affects on 
     many small rural communities. It is unacceptable to force 
     communities to pay up to $100,000 in a local cost share, in 
     addition to the many costs they currently incur in running a 
     small local airport.
       We respectfully request the removal of Section 408 from the 
     Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     Conference Report before it is brought to the House and the 
     Senate floors for consideration and we look forward to 
     working with you in the future to ensure rural communities 
     continue to receive essential air service.
           Sincerely,
         John E. Peterson, Allen Boyd, John McHugh, Jerry Moran, 
           Bill Shuster, Chris Cannon, John Shimkus, Marion Berry, 
           Barbara Cubin, Charles F. Bass, Ron Paul, John Tanner, 
           Frank D. Lucas, Scott McInnis, Kenny C. Hulshof, Rick 
           Renzi, Rob Bishop, Dennis A. Cardoza, Jim Gibbons, Jim 
           Matheson, Ed Case, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Mike Ross, Tom 
           Udall, Lane Evans, Timothy Johnson, Bernie Sanders, 
           John Boozman, Tom Latham, Heather Wilson, Ron Lewis, Jo 
           Ann Emerson, Doug Bereuter, Bart Stupak, Collin C. 
           Peterson.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House finds itself in a bit of an awkward position 
here. The Federal aviation reauthorization legislation passed this body 
some months ago with little controversy, an excellent bill moving us 
forward with investment in the future of aviation air traffic control 
air safety. A quite similar bill passed the Senate, and it appeared we 
were on our way to meeting the October 1 deadline.
  Unfortunately, something strange happened on the way to adopting a 
Federal aviation reauthorization, and that is White House ideology and 
politics and stupidity.
  We were summoned to an emergency meeting of the conference the day 
before the House was to adjourn for the August recess, because the FAA 
bill was going to be brought to the floor the next day. There was just 
one little change, an unwritten amendment to privatize 71 air traffic 
control towers.
  Well, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) did not like that 
much, so, whoops, suddenly these deeply-held principles could be 
changed, and it was suddenly 69 towers could be privatized, because the 
two in Alaska did not need to be privatized anymore.
  Now, when the Senator from Arizona was questioned as to how he came 
up with the list of 69 that presented to him by the White House, he 
said, oh, there were really good reasons for it. These were all just 
little VFR dinky airports and this would be a more efficient way to do 
it.
  I said well, I wonder if he ever landed at Boeing Field in Seattle. I 
did not think Boeing was aware of the fact that that was just a VFR 
field, a little dinky field. I thought it was actually kind of crucial 
to the aviation industry of the United States of America and Boeing, 
our largest manufacturer, in fact, our only commercial manufacturer. 
Then others went on to question about others on the list. The bottom 
line was he was defending the indefensible.
  The White House wants to say that it is not the business of the 
government of the United States of America, it is not the business of 
government employees, to control air traffic, to provide for safety and 
control of the national air space. That should be a private sector 
function. Somebody might be able to make a little bit of money doing 
it, despite the fact there is no successful model of privatization in 
the world. They are all more expensive and less efficient.
  Well, what the heck, that does not matter to this White House. So 
what if we gouge the taxpayers for more money, if someone can make a 
little money, and maybe we can bust another union here. That is all 
this is about. It is quite simple.
  Both the House and the Senate, by near unanimous majorities, voted to 
not privatize the air traffic control system. But the ideologues at the 
White House presented to their compliant lap dogs that order, and they 
trotted into the conference with it. They got it done by voice vote, no 
one signed the conference report from this side of the aisle. But they 
have not been able to bring the bill to the floor because, guess what? 
They cannot get the support in the House or the Senate for what they 
wanted and what they got, which is privatization of air traffic 
control, jeopardizing the safety and the future of the air space of the 
United States of America.
  Now they say, well, we will just go back to conference and strike it. 
Now, they are going to try the bait and switch rouse here which is to 
say, well, we will strike out that offensive and stupid provision out 
of the bill, you know, the arbitrary privatization of 69 air traffic 
control towers against the will of the Senate and the House. We will 
just strike that out altogether.
  But, of course, what they are conveniently omitting there is that 
both the Senate and House had had affirmative language to prohibit 
privatization, and absent that, the ideologues at the White House can 
actually privatize more air traffic control towers, further 
jeopardizing the safety of the traveling public and the control of the 
air space of the United States of America. So that is what they are 
going to try now.
  But I do not think that this House, the Members of this House or the 
Members of the other body, are that dumb that they are going to fall 
for that. I do not think it gives those who are weak-kneed enough cover 
to go in that direction.
  It is the same issue: Do you believe in privatization of air traffic 
control or not. Do you want to follow the failed models of other 
countries that are more expensive and less efficient or not? That is 
the bottom line when this comes back up on Thursday.

[[Page 25993]]

  They are going to say, oh, we took that out of the bill. It is 
underlying the bill without a prohibition, and the ideologues at the 
White House will sure as heck rush forward with privatization, because 
someone might be able to make a little bit of money. So what if it 
kills people and jeopardizes the air space.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, given the fact that I see the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation seated over there, perhaps he could give 
us some assurance that as we vote for this rule to send this flawed 
conference report back to the conference committee, that maybe he can 
give us an assurance that the conference committee will be open and 
Members will be allowed to offer amendments in the committee.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to him if he would be willing to 
answer that question.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; but I will close, 
hopefully, for our side and answer that question at that time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's response. We 
are all anxiously awaiting the answer to that question.
  At this juncture I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are finally going forward with the 
rule to commit the conference report back to conference, and I will 
vote for that motion. But I am concerned that going back to conference 
simply will repeat the sham we had the first time that there was a 
conference. I have served for 24 years on conference committees, and 
this is the first time I have been to a conference that did not have 
legislative language. We had concepts. So at a certain point I was 
allowed to offer a conceptual amendment to a concept that had been 
presented. And after some discussion, there was a vote, the concept 
that I offered was defeated on a voice vote, the bells rang for a vote 
in the House, and Senators were notified of a vote in their body. The 
conference dissolved and, the next thing I knew, the next day, 
miraculously, legislative language appeared and it contained a number 
of items that we were expecting; but we did not have it the day before, 
and it was an urgent matter to get this conference completed. That is 
94 days ago. I marvel at the urgency that suddenly vanished along with 
the legislative language which also then miraculously appeared the next 
day.
  There is a lot of good in this bill. We need to provide funding for 
the airport improvement program, facilities and equipment account for 
the operation air traffic control system. There are three issues that 
are very critical to the future of aviation. The first the gentleman 
from Oregon and the gentleman from Massachusetts on our side have 
discussed at some length, and that is privatization of the air traffic 
control system.
  This is not the first time this issue has been raised before our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. When I chaired the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, it was raised by the first Bush 
administration and we had a discussion about it; and my colleague, the 
ranking member on the Republican side, Mr. Clinger, and I both agreed 
that was a bad idea and it went away. Then it came back during the 
Clinton-Gore administration and it was more fully refined and defined, 
and I said it was a terrible idea and vigorously opposed it, with great 
support on the Republican side. Now that the idea has surfaced for a 
third time from a Republican administration, my colleagues, many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, suddenly have had a change 
of heart, or maybe many of them were not here in the House when the 
first two attempts were made. The fact is, this is just a very bad 
idea.
  The second issue is to establish training guidelines for flight 
attendants. The House bill said, you ``shall'' establish these training 
guidelines. We were all agreed on that. We marched arm in arm together 
in subcommittee, in full committee, and to the House floor, and through 
the House. And then a one-word change in Senate floor debate from 
``shall'' to ``may'' makes the whole thing speculative. We were all 
agreed that it was important. If you are going to arm the flight deck 
crew, have guns on the flight deck and you are going to have the sealed 
door, the bullet proof, bomb-proof door protecting the flight deck 
crew, the flight attendants say, what about us? Should we not have 
training? Should that not be mandatory? We say yes. This body voted 
``yes.'' But somehow, miraculously in conference, or in Senate floor 
debate, the White House said, no, we do not want it mandatory.
  The question we have to raise is, are we a three-party government or 
are we a parliamentary system in which the legislative is merely an 
extension of the executive branch? This body has time and again stood 
up against the executive branch for what we believe, the people's 
elected representatives, is the right thing for the best national 
interest; and we made that decision here in an overwhelming vote, not 
to privatize, to train the flight attendants on board aircraft; and all 
of a sudden, that just vanished, succumbed.
  Then the third issue is that of training cabin crews, I mean of 
cabotage, which we have never permitted previously to allow foreign 
airlines to ferry goods between cities. Well, that is, as the gentleman 
from Oregon said, the beginning of dissolution of another major sector 
of the American economy that other countries protect. Why should we let 
our guard down now just because that exchange of goods will take place 
in Alaska? I think that is just dead wrong.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has very well expressed a fourth 
issue requiring small communities to underwrite essential air service. 
That was an issue that was fundamental to deregulation in 1978. I sat 
on the committee. I voted for deregulation because it had protection 
for essential air service for small communities that they would not 
have to pay for. Now we are going to bring that concept back and make 
it almost a certainty that some communities in my district, if they do 
not have air service, the only way to get there is to be born there. 
Well, I do not want to see that happen; the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
does not want to see that happen; and we must not let that happen.
  Then the thing that I find, the step that I find very unpalatable, 
two steps, one is we will just remove the offending language when we 
recommit this bill to conference about the 69 towers and go back to 
current law. That is the poison pill. The current law is the 
President's executive order stating that air traffic control is not an 
inherently governmental service. That then opens the whole system up 
for privatization. I know there is language that says the rest of the 
air traffic control until 2007 cannot be privatized; but once we start 
down that road, the whole chain becomes unraveled.
  Then there is the second effort that we have been hearing about and 
reading about in news accounts of trading towers: if you agree to vote 
for this, we will take your tower out. Well, I find if you take this to 
its logical conclusion, eventually all the Members who have their tower 
in their district voted taken out of the privatization will have 
protected themselves against privatization, but they will be voting for 
the privatization system. So all of those who voted against 
privatization will have privatized towers. Those who want to vote for 
privatization will have their towers removed from the privatization 
requirement. I do not understand how anybody can take that home and 
sell that to their constituencies.
  Let us commit this bill to conference. I appeal to the chairman of 
the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee to have a real 
conference, not a sham. Let us gather the members together. Let us have 
full debate. Let us have a discussion of the

[[Page 25994]]

merits of the issues. Let us have real give and take on this issue as 
we have done time and again historically in House-Senate conferences on 
aviation legislation. Let us do it the right way, not this back-door 
sham way.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time. I am pleased to address some of the issues 
relating to this motion to recommit.
  First of all, I do support the motion to recommit the FAA 
reauthorization legislation and urge those on both sides of the aisle 
for this recommittal.
  To answer the gentleman from Massachusetts' question to me previously 
about commitments that I would make as to what would be in and what 
would be out of the final legislation and conference report that comes 
out, I can make no guarantee tonight. I am but one member of the 
conference committee, even though I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation 
and am willing to work with the other side.
  But let me set some facts straight tonight as we conclude the debate 
on the motion to recommit. First of all, my colleagues heard the 
ranking member of the full committee just cite that air traffic control 
is an inherently governmental function and that somehow this has been 
politicized by our side of the aisle. Nothing, I say to my colleagues, 
could be further from the truth. In fact, for 7\1/2\ years of the 
Clinton administration, there was no inherently governmental label 
placed on FAA air traffic control. That was done in the last waning 
months of the Clinton administration as a bone to some of those in 
organized labor. But prior to that, there was no inherently 
governmental label. President Bush did remove that when he came into 
office and has asked for the option to look at which tower should be 
privatized or which should be contract towers and which should be fully 
FAA-operated towers.
  The fact is, almost half, 219, of our towers today are contract 
towers. They are run by the FAA, but managed by a private company. The 
fact is, on September 11, half of the towers in this country that were 
contract towers, so-called privatized towers, also brought down the 
planes safely on September 11. The fact is, the President wanted the 
ability to look at every tower that is fully FAA-staffed and decide 
which should be fully FAA-staffed and which should be contract. We 
decided in this report, not just by picking towers at random, but by 
taking a report that was first done in the year 2000 by the Inspector 
General who looked at some 71 FAA, fully FAA-run towers. He looked at 
all 71 of them. And he came back and he said, based on first safety and 
secondly on cost, these are towers that should be looked at for 
becoming contract towers.
  Then, not only in the year 2000 did he look at it, but NATCA, the 
union that runs air traffic control, asked for a relook and disputed 
the cost figures. So we asked for a relook. And in the year 2002, he 
conducted a relook; and we just got that report. It showed that the 
contract towers, in fact, when compared to the fully FAA towers, had a 
2\1/2\ times better safety rate in the year 2000; and then the relook, 
I have a copy here, says 4\1/2\ times safer with a contract tower than 
a fully FAA; that is on the basis of safety.
  Then just turning to the next page and looking at cost, the cost 
here, our analysis showed that the 12 contract towers on average cost 
about $917,000 less to operate. So on the basis of safety and cost, it 
was safer to have contract towers. And they compared the 2000 study and 
the 2002 study which we just got in 2003, and both confirmed this.
  But a campaign of disinformation to Members in Congress, to the 
public, and to everyone who has had the opportunity to see it, a 
campaign of disinformation to the tune of $6 million has tried to say 
just the opposite of what the facts are. Now, these, I say to my 
colleagues, are the facts.
  So we will take this back to conference, and we will revisit this 
issue. Anyone who would like, we will make a copy of this report 
available. But this campaign of disinformation is now forcing us to go 
back to conference. I make no guarantees as to what will come out of 
that conference. None of these provisions or the 69 towers that we have 
included were secretly written provisions.

                              {time}  1900

  That provision was voted on in open conference and the other side 
lost in this issue. So these are the facts that we deal with.
  Finally, the cargo extension provision in Alaska, I hope we do not 
change that. Because if you want to see more jobs lost in the United 
States, if you want to see a transportation cargo hub moved from Alaska 
to Canada, go ahead and change this provision. And you will put 
thousands of people out of work and move cargo to another country. Try 
that. See how that works.
  Finally, the local share match, we heard the plea of the rural 
communities. The administration wanted a match. We eliminated all the 
match except in 10 demo essential air service locations. And even with 
those 10 demos, we have allowed for a waiver. I hope we keep that 
provision that that allows that waiver and allows essential service.
  Those are the facts. We can deal with fantasy, or we can deal with a 
multimillion dollar disinformation campaign. I urge the recommittal of 
this legislation, and I ask that you fasten your seat belts and put 
your tray tables in an upright and locked position and get ready for a 
ride to conference.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I have got my seat belt in place, tray 
table is up, waiting for a real conference. The points the gentleman 
from Florida raised are the kinds of issues that we should be 
discussing in the conference. We did not have that kind of discussion 
before, and if you go back to the report of the Inspector General and, 
as verified by, as reviewed further by GAO, you find that the selection 
of air traffic control towers was arbitrary, did not follow a 
consistent pattern, was flawed in the number of towers selected.
  Furthermore, there are 63 million operations a year run by our FAA 
control towers. The contract towers handle a fraction of that amount, 
and they handle different kinds of traffic. And those are the kinds of 
issues I say to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on 
Aviation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) that we should be 
discussing in the House-Senate conference. That is where we ought to 
have that debate, not here in 1-minute sound bites.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida cited 7\1/2\ years of the 
Clinton administration not doing anything. That was because I, with the 
support of Republicans in the House, vigorously opposed the Gore 
reinventing government proposal to privatize air traffic control. We 
took it on head-on and stopped them dead in their tracks. I say to the 
gentleman, keep that in mind.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying we are here today because 
the Republican leadership in the White House have forgotten that the 
House of Representatives is a deliberative body where Members of both 
parties insist that when they express their will, it will be respected 
and in conference committees. They do not like secret deals in back 
rooms.
  The question that I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, was not a 
question of whether or not he could guarantee that certain provisions 
would be in the bill or provisions would be removed from the bill, what 
I asked him was very simply a guarantee that this would be an open 
conference, unlike what happened before, that this would be an open 
conference, an open process, a fair process, where Members of both 
parties, Democrats and Republicans, would have the opportunity to

[[Page 25995]]

not only discuss issues, but to be able to offer their amendments. That 
was the question that the gentleman did not answer.
  And I would hope, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote for this 
rule, to send this flawed conference report back to the conference 
committee and let us hope this time they get it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate. I think it is very important 
that the facts alluded to by Mr. Mica are here in writing, written 
down, black and white here. So the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) 
has the copies available for the membership if any of the Members want 
to review the facts.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of 
Representatives is making a procedural vote on whether not to recommit 
the FAA Reauthorization bill to conference. What this is really is an 
attempt to circumvent the real legislative process--an up or down vote 
on the merits of their proposal. Why is the Republican leadership doing 
this? Because they are trying to sneak through provisions that are 
seriously flawed and pose a major risk to flight safety and national 
security.
  As a cochair of the newly created Congressional Labor and Working 
Families Caucus, I find it appalling that Congress would consider 
privatizing air traffic controllers when our security is at a greater 
risk that ever. This and two other provisions in this bill would do 
less--not more--to protect us from terrorism, and seriously undermine 
the airline industry in our country and jeopardize the safety of our 
personal air travel.
  First, this bill opens the door for private companies to purchase air 
traffic control towers from the Government. This means our Government 
will no longer be in control of the safety of our airspace. Privatizing 
the Nation's air traffic control system is a risky and dangerous 
experiment at a time when public safety is of the highest importance.
  Also, under this bill flight attendants are no longer required to 
receive antiterrorism training. Following the events of 9/11, flight 
attendants want to be properly trained; passengers want them to be 
trained; and as a frequent flyer I personally want them to be trained.
  Lastly, it would allow international airlines to carry cargo 
throughout the United States without it being properly screened or 
tracked. The proposed changes would affect national security as well as 
jeopardize the livelihood of our domestic industry.
  Ironically, after 9/11, airport screeners were federalized because we 
realized that our safety depended on the individuals working those 
posts to be under Federal supervision. It is same with air traffic 
controllers.
  Look at it this way . . . the price of a plane ticket--$235, the 
price of airport parking for a week--$75, and the expertise and 
experience of air traffic controllers to land your airplane, priceless.
  There is no price tag to our safety. For the safety for all 
Americans, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to recommit 
the FAA Conference Report and take out these heinous provisions. Let's 
put safety first.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
the quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Evidently, a quorum is not 
present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX this 15-minute vote on the House 
Resolution 377 will be followed by four other votes. The middle three 
votes in this series will be 5-minute votes. The first and last votes 
will be 15-minutes votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407, 
nays 0, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 569]

                               YEAS--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bell
     Burns
     Chabot
     DeMint
     Dooley (CA)
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson

[[Page 25996]]


     Lantos
     McCollum
     Nethercutt
     Pryce (OH)
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Thornberry
     Visclosky


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1926

  Mr. SOUDER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________