[House Report 112-52]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     112-52

======================================================================



 
 FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

                                _______
                                

 April 4, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 970]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 970) to reauthorize the civil 
aviation research and development projects and activities of 
the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose and Summary.............................................7
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................7
  IV. Hearing Summary.................................................7
   V. Committee Consideration.........................................8
  VI. Committee Votes.................................................8
 VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................16
VIII. Committee Views................................................16
  IX. Committee Oversight Findings...................................19
   X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........19
  XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur20
 XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................20
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................20
 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................20
  XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................22
 XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................22
XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch............................22
XVIII.Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................22

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........24
  XX. Dissenting Views...............................................29
 XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................31

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or a 
repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
considered to be made to a section or other provision of title 49, 
United States Code.

TITLE X--FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 2011

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation Research and 
Development Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 1002. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
          (2) FAA.--The term ``FAA'' means the Federal Aviation 
        Administration.
          (3) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution 
        of higher education'' has the same meaning given the term in 
        section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        1001(a)).
          (4) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration.
          (5) National research council.--The term ``National Research 
        Council'' means the National Research Council of the National 
        Academies of Science and Engineering.
          (6) NOAA.--The term ``NOAA'' means the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.
          (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Transportation.

SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 48102(a) is amended--
          (1) in the matter before paragraph (1) by striking ``of this 
        title'' and inserting ``of this title and, for each of fiscal 
        years 2011 through 2014, under subsection (g)'';
          (2) in paragraph (11)--
                  (A) in subparagraph (K) by inserting ``and'' at the 
                end; and
                  (B) in subparagraph (L) by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
          (3) in paragraph (13) by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (4) in paragraph (14) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (5) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(15) for fiscal year 2011, $165,020,000; and
          ``(16) for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2014, 
        $146,827,000.''.
  (b) Specific Program Limitations.--Section 48102 is amended by 
inserting after subsection (f) the following:
  ``(g) Specific Authorizations.--The following programs described in 
the research, engineering, and development account of the national 
aviation research plan required under section 44501(c) are authorized:
          ``(1) Fire Research and Safety.
          ``(2) Propulsion and Fuel Systems.
          ``(3) Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.
          ``(4) Atmospheric Hazards--Aircraft Icing/Digital System 
        Safety.
          ``(5) Continued Airworthiness.
          ``(6) Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research.
          ``(7) Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human 
        Factors.
          ``(8) System Safety Management.
          ``(9) Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors.
          ``(10) Aeromedical Research.
          ``(11) Weather Program.
          ``(12) Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research.
          ``(13) NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.
          ``(14) Joint Planning and Development Office.
          ``(15) NextGen--Wake Turbulence Research.
          ``(16) NextGen--Air Ground Integration Human Factors.
          ``(17) NextGen--Self Separation Human Factors.
          ``(18) NextGen--Weather Technology in the Cockpit.
          ``(19) Environment and Energy Research.
          ``(20) NextGen Environmental Research--Aircraft Technologies, 
        Fuels, and Metrics.
          ``(21) System Planning and Resource Management.
          ``(22) The William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory 
        Facility.''.
  (c) Program Authorizations.--If the other accounts described in the 
national aviation research plan required under section 44501(c) of 
title 49, United States Code, are authorized for each of the fiscal 
years 2011 through 2014, the following research and development 
activities are authorized:
          (1) Runway Incursion Reduction.
          (2) System Capacity, Planning, and Improvement.
          (3) Operations Concept Validation.
          (4) NAS Weather Requirements.
          (5) Airspace Management Program.
          (6) NextGen--Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 
        Factors.
          (7) NextGen--Environment and Energy--Environmental Management 
        System and Advanced Noise and Emissions reduction.
          (8) NextGen--New Air Traffic Management Requirements.
          (9) NextGen--Operations Concept Validation--Validation 
        Modeling.
          (10) NextGen--System Safety Management Transformation.
          (11) NextGen--Wake Turbulence--Recategorization.
          (12) NextGen--Operational Assessments.
          (13) NextGen--Staffed NextGen Towers.
          (14) Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.
          (15) Airports Technology Research Program--Capacity.
          (16) Airports Technology Research Program--Safety.
          (17) Airports Technology Research Program--Environment.
          (18) Airport Cooperative Research--Capacity.
          (19) Airport Cooperative Research--Environment.
          (20) Airport Cooperative Research--Safety.

SEC. 1004. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

  (a) Research Initiative.--Section 44504(b) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (6) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
          (2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(8) in conjunction with other Federal agencies, as 
        appropriate, to develop technologies and methods to assess the 
        risk of and prevent defects, failures, and malfunctions of 
        products, parts, and processes for use in all classes of 
        unmanned aircraft systems that could result in a catastrophic 
        failure of the unmanned aircraft that would endanger other 
        aircraft in the national airspace system.''.
  (b) Systems, Procedures, Facilities, and Devices.--Section 44505(b) 
is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
          (2) in paragraph (5)(C) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) to develop a better understanding of the relationship 
        between human factors and unmanned aircraft system safety; and
          ``(7) to develop dynamic simulation models for integrating 
        all classes of unmanned aircraft systems into the national 
        airspace system without any degradation of existing levels of 
        safety for all national airspace system users.''.

SEC. 1005. RESEARCH PROGRAM ON RUNWAYS.

  Section 44505(c) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs 
        (5) through (8); and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) improved runway surfaces;
          ``(4) engineered material restraining systems for runways at 
        both general aviation airports and airports with commercial air 
        carrier operations;''.

SEC. 1006. RESEARCH ON DESIGN FOR CERTIFICATION.

  Section 44505 is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
  ``(d) Research on Design for Certification.--
          ``(1) Research.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and Development 
        Reauthorization Act of 2011, the Administrator shall conduct 
        research on methods and procedures to improve both confidence 
        in and the timeliness of certification of new technologies for 
        their introduction into the national airspace system.
          ``(2) Research plan.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
        of enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and Development 
        Reauthorization Act of 2011, the Administrator shall develop a 
        plan for the research under paragraph (1) that contains the 
        objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and 5-year budgetary 
        profile.
          ``(3) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into an 
        arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct an 
        independent review of the plan developed under paragraph (2) 
        and shall provide the results of that review to the Committee 
        on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
        Transportation of the Senate not later than 18 months after the 
        date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and 
        Development Reauthorization Act of 2011.''.

SEC. 1007. AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

  Section 44511(f) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``establish a 4-year pilot'' 
        and inserting ``maintain an''; and
          (2) in paragraph (4)--
                  (A) by striking ``Not later than 6 months after the 
                expiration of the program under this subsection,'' and 
                inserting ``Not later than September 30, 2012,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``program, including recommendations 
                as to the need for establishing a permanent airport 
                cooperative research program'' and inserting 
                ``program''.

SEC. 1008. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

  (a) Government's Share of Costs.--Section 44513(f) is amended to read 
as follows:
  ``(f) Government's Share of Costs.--The United States Government's 
share of establishing and operating a center and all related research 
activities that grant recipients carry out shall not exceed 50 percent 
of the costs, except that the Administrator may increase such share to 
a maximum of 75 percent of the costs for any fiscal year if the 
Administrator determines that a center would be unable to carry out the 
authorized activities described in this section without additional 
funds.''.
  (b) Annual Report.--Section 44513 is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(h) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall transmit annually to 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate at the time of the President's budget 
request a report that lists--
          ``(1) the research projects that have been initiated by each 
        center in the preceding year;
          ``(2) the amount of funding for each research project and the 
        funding source;
          ``(3) the institutions participating in each project and 
        their shares of the overall funding for each research project; 
        and
          ``(4) the level of cost-sharing for each research project.''.

SEC. 1009. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR AVIATION HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH.

  (a) Establishment.--Using amounts made available under section 
48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, the Administrator may 
establish a center of excellence to conduct research on--
          (1) human performance in the air transportation environment, 
        including among air transportation personnel such as air 
        traffic controllers, pilots, and technicians; and
          (2) any other aviation human resource issues pertinent to 
        developing and maintaining a safe and efficient air 
        transportation system.
  (b) Activities.--Activities conducted under this section may include 
the following:
          (1) Research, development, and evaluation of training 
        programs for air traffic controllers, aviation safety 
        inspectors, airway transportation safety specialists, and 
        engineers.
          (2) Research and development of best practices for 
        recruitment into the aviation field for mission critical 
        positions.
          (3) Research, in consultation with other relevant Federal 
        agencies, to develop a baseline of general aviation employment 
        statistics and an analysis of future needs in the aviation 
        field.
          (4) Research and the development of a comprehensive 
        assessment of the airframe and powerplant technician 
        certification process and its effect on employment trends.
          (5) Evaluation of aviation maintenance technician school 
        environments.
          (6) Research and an assessment of the ability to develop 
        training programs to allow for the transition of recently 
        unemployed and highly skilled mechanics into the aviation 
        field.

SEC. 1010. INTERAGENCY RESEARCH ON AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

  (a) In General.--Using amounts made available under section 48102(a) 
of title 49, United States Code, the Administrator, in coordination 
with NASA and after consultation with other relevant agencies, may 
maintain a research program to assess the potential effect of aviation 
on the environment and, if warranted, to evaluate approaches to address 
any such effect.
  (b) Research Plan.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator, in coordination with NASA 
        and after consultation with other relevant agencies, shall 
        jointly develop a plan to carry out the research under 
        subsection (a).
          (2) Contents.--Such plan shall contain an inventory of 
        current interagency research being undertaken in this area, 
        future research objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a 
        5-year budgetary profile.
          (3) Requirements.--Such plan--
                  (A) shall be completed not later than 1 year after 
                the date of enactment of this Act;
                  (B) shall be submitted to Congress for review; and
                  (C) shall be updated, as appropriate, every 3 years 
                after the initial submission.

SEC. 1011. AVIATION FUEL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--Using amounts made available under section 48102(a) 
of title 49, United States Code, the Administrator, in coordination 
with the NASA Administrator, shall continue research and development 
activities into the qualification of an unleaded aviation fuel and safe 
transition to this fuel for the fleet of piston engine aircraft.
  (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the program under subsection (a), 
the Administrator shall, at a minimum--
          (1) not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, develop a research and development plan containing 
        the specific research and development objectives, including 
        consideration of aviation safety, technical feasibility, and 
        other relevant factors, and the anticipated timetable for 
        achieving the objectives;
          (2) assess the methods and processes by which the FAA and 
        industry may expeditiously certify and approve new aircraft and 
        recertify existing aircraft with respect to unleaded aviation 
        fuel;
          (3) assess technologies that modify existing piston engine 
        aircraft to enable safe operation of the aircraft using 
        unleaded aviation fuel and determine the resources necessary to 
        certify those technologies; and
          (4) develop recommendations for appropriate policies and 
        guidelines to facilitate a transition to unleaded aviation fuel 
        for piston engine aircraft.
  (c) Collaborations.--In carrying out the program under subsection 
(a), the Administrator shall collaborate with--
          (1) industry groups representing aviation consumers, 
        manufacturers, and fuel producers and distributors; and
          (2) other appropriate Federal agencies.
  (d) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall provide a report to the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the 
plan, information obtained, and policies and guidelines developed 
pursuant to subsection (b).

SEC. 1012. RESEARCH PROGRAM ON ALTERNATIVE JET FUEL TECHNOLOGY FOR 
                    CIVIL AIRCRAFT.

  (a) Research Program.--Using amounts made available under section 
48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall conduct a 
research program related to developing and certifying jet fuel from 
alternative sources (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, ethanol, 
butanol, and hydrogen) through grants or other measures authorized 
under section 106(l)(6) of such title, including reimbursable 
agreements with other Federal agencies.
  (b) Participation by Stakeholders.--In conducting the program, the 
Secretary shall provide for participation by educational and research 
institutions and by industry partners that have existing facilities and 
experience in the research and development of technology for 
alternative jet fuels.
  (c) Collaborations.--In conducting the program, the Secretary may 
collaborate with existing interagency programs--
          (1) to further the research and development of alternative 
        jet fuel technology for civil aircraft, including feasibility 
        studies; and
          (2) to exchange information with the participants in the 
        Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative.

SEC. 1013. REVIEW OF FAA'S ENERGY- AND ENVIRONMENT-RELATED RESEARCH 
                    PROGRAMS.

  (a) Review.--Using amounts made available under section 48102(a) of 
title 49, United States Code, the Administrator shall conduct a review 
of FAA energy-related and environment-related research programs. The 
review shall assess whether--
          (1) the programs have well-defined, prioritized, and 
        appropriate research objectives;
          (2) the programs are properly coordinated with the energy- 
        and environment-related research programs at NASA, NOAA, and 
        other relevant agencies;
          (3) the programs have allocated appropriate resources to each 
        of the research objectives; and
          (4) there exist suitable mechanisms for transitioning the 
        research results into FAA's operational technologies and 
        procedures and certification activities.
  (b) Report.--A report containing the results of such review shall be 
provided to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 1014. REVIEW OF FAA'S AVIATION SAFETY-RELATED RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

  (a) Review.--Using amounts made available under section 48102(a) of 
title 49, United States Code, the Administrator shall conduct a review 
of the FAA's aviation safety-related research programs. The review 
shall assess whether--
          (1) the programs have well-defined, prioritized, and 
        appropriate research objectives;
          (2) the programs are properly coordinated with the safety 
        research programs of NASA and other relevant Federal agencies;
          (3) the programs have allocated appropriate resources to each 
        of the research objectives;
          (4) the programs should include a determination about whether 
        a survey of participants across the air transportation system 
        is an appropriate way to study safety risks within such system; 
        and
          (5) there exist suitable mechanisms for transitioning the 
        research results from the programs into the FAA's operational 
        technologies and procedures and certification activities in a 
        timely manner.
  (b) Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs To Be Assessed.--The 
FAA aviation safety-related research programs to be assessed under the 
review shall include, at a minimum, the following:
          (1) Air traffic control/technical operations human factors.
          (2) Runway incursion reduction.
          (3) Flightdeck/maintenance system integration human factors.
          (4) Airports technology research--safety.
          (5) Airport Cooperative Research Program--safety.
          (6) Weather Program.
          (7) Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety.
          (8) Fire research and safety.
          (9) Propulsion and fuel systems.
          (10) Advanced materials/structural safety.
          (11) Aging aircraft.
          (12) Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.
          (13) Aeromedical research.
          (14) Aviation safety risk analysis.
          (15) Unmanned aircraft systems research.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 14 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the 
results of such review.

                        II. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 970 is to reauthorize research and 
development activities at the Federal Aviation Administration 
for fiscal years 2011-2014 and adds specific direction to 
existing programs to enhance the research that is currently 
being performed. Additionally, the bill requires an assessment 
of existing research and development activities in a number of 
programs to encourage coordination and streamlining of research 
and discourage duplication.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was created to 
develop the nation's air commerce system and promote aviation 
safety. As part of the Airport Development and Airway Trust 
Fund established by Congress in 1982, a comprehensive research 
and development program was put in place to maintain a safe and 
efficient air transportation system. In 2003, Congress passed 
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-
176) that authorized funding for FAA's activities, including 
research and development, for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 
P.L. 108-176 also established the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System's Joint Planning and Development Office 
(JPDO) in Title VII, Aviation Research, to manage work related 
to planning, research, development and creation of a transition 
plan for the implementation of the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System. Since 2007 Congress has attempted 
without success to complete legislative work on a comprehensive 
FAA reauthorization, including these programs. As civil 
aviation is such a critical element of our economy, FAA's 
research and development program plays a crucial role ensuring 
that the agency's modernization and safety programs are 
properly focused and well planned. H.R. 970 reauthorizes 
appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration's 
research and development programs for fiscal years 2011 through 
2014.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing relevant to H.R. 
970 on Wednesday, February 16, 2011. The hearing entitled ``A 
Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Research and 
Development Programs'' focused on the Federal Aviation 
Administration's portfolio of research and development 
programs. The hearing largely focused on FAA's Next Generation 
Air Traffic System (NextGen) designed to modernize our nation's 
air traffic control system and now in early stages of 
deployment.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Victoria Cox, 
Vice President of the FAA's Air Traffic Organization; the Hon. 
Calvin Scovel, Inspector General of the Department of 
Transportation; Dr. John Hansman, professor of aeronautics and 
astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 
chair of the FAA's advisory committee on research and 
development; and Mr. Peter Bunce, CEO of the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association.

                       V. Committee Consideration

    On March 9, 2011, H.R. 970, a bill to reauthorize the civil 
aviation research and development projects and activities of 
the Federal Aviation Administration was introduced by 
Congressman Ralph Hall with original cosponsor Steven Palazzo 
(R-MS) and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. On March 17, 2011, the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 970 
favorably reported, as amended, by a record vote of 17 yeas and 
13 nays.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A 
motion to order H.R. 970, favorably reported to the House, as 
amended, was agreed to by a record vote of 17 yeas and 13 nays.


    During consideration of H.R. 970 the following amendments 
were considered:


              VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 970 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration's 
(FAA) Research and Development programs for fiscal years 2011 
through 2014 funded through the Research, Engineering, and 
Development (RE&D) account. The bill also authorizes R&D 
programs listed in the FAA's National Aviation Research Plan 
that are funded out of agency's Facilities and Equipment 
account, and the Airport Improvement Program account, but does 
not specify amounts. H.R. 970 requires FAA to research and 
develop technologies to ensure the safe operation of Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems in our national airspace system. It requires 
the FAA to continue research on improved runway surfaces and 
engineered material restraining systems. The bill directs the 
FAA to establish a research program on methods to improve 
certification of new technologies to enable faster introduction 
of these technologies into our national airspace system. It 
extends the Airport Cooperative Research Program, which is 
designed to help small- and medium-sized airports overcome 
common operations challenges. The bill permits FAA, on a case-
by-case basis, to increase the government's cost share in the 
Centers of Excellence program by 25% if the Administrator 
determines that a center would otherwise be unable to carry out 
authorized research. Under the bill the FAA may establish a new 
Center of Excellence for Aviation Human Resource Research. It 
permits the agency to continue researching the effects of 
aviation on the environment, to coordinate the research with 
NASA, and to develop a five year research plan with goals, 
objectives, milestones, and budgets. H.R. 970 directs FAA to 
continue a research program to develop an unleaded aviation 
fuel for general aviation piston aircraft, and directs research 
into technologies to develop jet fuel from alternative sources 
such as coal, hydrogen, natural gas, and biomass. Finally, the 
bill requires FAA to perform assessments of its energy-and-
environment-related research program and its safety-related 
research program.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    H.R. 970 authorizes appropriations for all FAA research and 
development activities, including those funded through the 
Research, Engineering and Development account, the Facilities 
and Equipment account, and the Airport Improvement Program 
account. FAA publishes annually its National Aviation Research 
Plan that calls out each agency research and development 
activity and associated research goals, objectives, timelines, 
proposed budget, and the account from which the activity is 
funded.
    The Committee notes given the current fiscal situation of 
the country, the bill makes modest spending reductions for the 
Research, Engineering and Development account authorization to 
the FY08 enacted level. Thus, the Committee does not recommend 
amounts FAA should invest on each activity, but rather expects 
the FAA Administrator to establish priorities in research and 
development when allocating funds.

                       UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

    Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) have been used to great 
advantage by our nation's military. They have proven to be 
excellent reconnaissance and surveillance platforms, and are 
able to remain aloft for periods extending up to 30 hours. 
Their size can range from hand-held to very large systems 
weighing over 10,000 pounds, and their operating capabilities 
are equally broad, from low and slow loitering to high-
altitude, long duration flights.
    UAS's can provide critical public safety and homeland 
security capabilities here at home, such as border protection, 
maritime surveillance, and natural disaster response 
surveillance and communications. However, to enable operators 
to fly missions safely and routinely in the national airspace 
system, it is imperative that the Federal Aviation 
Administration research and develop technologies and systems 
that will allow a UAS to operate safely in the same airspace 
with general aviation and commercial aircraft.
    In the same manner that FAA is charged with developing 
technologies to improve the reliability of aircraft, the 
Committee directs the agency to perform similar research on UAS 
vehicles to ensure development of robust designs, parts, and 
processes. Additionally, the Committee directs FAA to undertake 
human factors research on the operation of UAS, and to develop 
airspace simulation capabilities to characterize and measure 
the operation of UAS in our national airspace system.

                          RESEARCH ON RUNWAYS

    The Committee is directing FAA to conduct research on 
improved runway surfaces and engineered material restraining 
systems for use at general aviation and commercial airports. 
Similar research has been authorized in previous bills, but 
this provision amends section 48102(a) of title 49, United 
States Code, to give this activity continuing authority. 
Research and technology demonstrations related to engineering 
materials restraining systems have the potential to 
significantly improve operations at general aviation airports, 
and the Committee encourages FAA to carry out activities and 
continue to seek improvements in this area.

                  RESEARCH ON DESIGN FOR CERTIFICATION

    In its report Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics--
Foundation for the Future, the National Research Council stated 
that ``As systems become more complex, methods to ensure that 
new technologies can be readily applied to certified systems 
become more difficult to validate. NASA, in cooperation with 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), should anticipate 
the need to certify new technology before its introduction, and 
it should conduct research on methods to improve both 
confidence in, and the timeliness of, certification.'' The 
committee shares the National Research Council's view, 
directing FAA to establish a research program on methods to 
improve certification of new technologies for introduction into 
the national airspace system. In order to ensure that the 
research program addresses the critical research needs, the 
Committee supports an independent review of the research plan.

                  AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

    In P.L. 108-176, the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act, the Airport Cooperative Research Program 
was authorized as a pilot program to ``identify problems that 
are shared by airport operating agencies and can be solved 
through applied research but that are not being adequately 
addressed by existing Federal research programs. . . .'' The 
Committee finds this program has produced research results and 
technologies designed to help smaller- and medium-sized 
airports address a variety of operational challenges, and thus 
extends the authorization of the program.

                         CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

    In order to ensure that meritorious research is not 
precluded by an inability to attract sufficient outside 
matching funds, the Committee grants the FAA Administrator the 
ability to increase the federal government's matching share for 
an individual center for any fiscal year only if the 
Administrator determines that without additional funds the 
center would be unable to carry out the authorized activities. 
However, the Committee does not intend that such reduced 
matching funds requirements result in a significantly 
unbalanced allocation of research funding among the 
institutions in any given Center of Excellence. The Committee 
has directed the FAA to report on the activities and funding 
allocations of the Centers of Excellence program on an annual 
basis to help the Committee better evaluate the progress of the 
Centers of Excellence.
    The Committee authorizes the FAA, at its discretion and out 
of available funds, to establish a center of excellence 
dedicated to research and development on human performance 
issues affecting aviation safety and efficiency. Critical 
skills positions in the aviation industry are demanding and 
unforgiving, and violations of operating standards can have 
effects on aviation safety. FAA traffic forecasts show a steady 
increase in the number of flight operations in our national 
airspace system, putting increasing pressure on individuals to 
perform at the highest levels. As our air traffic control 
system modernizes, and automation plays a larger role in its 
operation, information gleaned from research and development on 
the appropriate skills and number of individuals needed to 
maintain a safe national airspace will be critical.

          INTERAGENCY RESEARCH ON AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    The Committee supports research into aviation's effect on 
the environment in order to ensure future growth of this 
essential transportation mode. Our nation needs to better 
measure aviation's environmental effects and evaluate potential 
approaches to address them. The Committee is thus authorizing 
the FAA, at its discretion and in coordination with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to maintain its 
research program to assess aviation's effect on the 
environment. In order to ensure such research is coordinated 
and non-duplicative, FAA is directed to provide to Congress a 
survey of similar interagency research now being performed, 
future research objectives, proposed tasks, and a five year 
budgetary profile.

                 AVIATION FUEL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee is aware that the FAA has been carrying out 
R&D on technologies to allow existing general aviation piston 
engines to operate safely using unleaded aviation fuel, and the 
Committee supports such research. However, the Committee 
believes that it is important for the FAA to coordinate where 
appropriate with NASA on such research in view of NASA's 
experience in engine technology R&D, and to collaborate with 
manufacturers, fuel producers, aviation consumers, and other 
appropriate Federal agencies, to ensure the highest degree of 
coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders, and to 
advance adoption of new technologies and fuels once they have 
been proven safe.
    The Committee supports research on the development and 
certification of alternative sources of feedstock that can be 
used in the production of jet fuel, and provides for the 
participation of industry and educational and research 
institutions in carrying out this program. The committee 
believes our nation is rich with other forms of hydrocarbons 
that can be exploited to supplement conventional sources of 
feedstock.

   REVIEW OF FAA'S ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT AND AVIATION SAFETY-RELATED 
                           RESEARCH PROGRAMS

    The Committee believes that the FAA's energy and 
environment-related research programs would benefit from a 
review of their research objectives, the degree of coordination 
with research programs of other relevant federal agencies, the 
resource allocations devoted to each of the research 
objectives, and whether there exist suitable mechanisms for 
transitioning research results into operational technologies. 
Thus the Committee directs FAA to carry-out such a review and 
provide results within 18 months of enactment.
    The Committee has concerns about FAA's safety-related 
research programs and directs the FAA to conduct a review of 
the research objectives, the degree of coordination with 
research programs of other relevant federal agencies, the 
resource allocations devoted to each of the research 
objectives, a determination about whether a survey of 
participants across the air transportation system is an 
appropriate way to study safety risks within such system, and 
whether there exist suitable mechanisms for transitioning 
research results into operational technologies. The FAA is 
expected to provide results within 14 months of enactment.

                    IX. Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report.

        X. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and 
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report, including the goal to reauthorize 
civil aviation research and development programs at the Federal 
Aviation Administration in a fiscally responsible manner while 
ensuring modernization and safety programs are properly focused 
and well planned.

 XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                       XII. Advisory on Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 970, the ``Federal Aviation 
Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' 
contains no earmarks.

                     XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

               XIV. Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                                    March 22, 2011.
Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 970, the Federal 
Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2011.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 970--Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act 
        of 2011

    Summary: H.R. 970 would authorize the appropriation of 
funds for research related to aviation. CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $412 million over the 2011-
2016 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 
Enacting H.R. 970 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 970 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 970 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 
(transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016   2011-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Aviation Research Spending Under Current Law:
    Authorization Level..............................     191       0       0       0       0       0       191
    Estimated Outlays................................     186     106      43      20      17      20       392
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level..............................     -26     147     147     147       0       0       415
    Estimated Outlays................................     -14      69     125     144      69      19       412
Spending Under H.R. 970:
    Authorization Level..............................     165     147     147     147       0       0       606
    Estimated Outlays................................     172     175     168     164      86      39       804
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. A full-year appropriation for aviation programs in 2011 has not yet been enacted. For this estimate, CBO
  assumes that the partial-year funding already provided will be increased proportionately--annualized--to
  provide full-year funding.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
970 will be enacted in the spring of 2011. Outlay estimates are 
based on historical spending patterns for affected programs and 
on information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA).
    H.R. 970 would authorize appropriations over the 2011-2014 
period for the FAA's research, engineering, and development 
program. On an annualized basis, discretionary funding for that 
program currently totals $191 million under Public Law 112-6, 
Additional Continuing Appropriation Amendments, 2011. CBO 
estimates that spending under current law will total $392 
million over the 2011-2016 period. That estimate includes 
outlays stemming from authority provided under Public Law 112-6 
and from funding provided prior to 2011.
    H.R. 970 would authorize appropriations totaling $165 
million in 2011 ($26 million less than the annualized amount 
that is currently available in 2011 under Public Law 112-6) and 
$147 million each year between 2012 and 2014 for aviation-
related research activities. CBO estimates that fully funding 
H.R. 970 would result in additional spending totaling $412 
million over the 2011-2016 period.
    In addition, H.R. 970 would authorize additional spending 
for research and development related to designing and managing 
the national airspace and efforts to enhance safety, capacity, 
and environmental attributes of airports. Any spending for 
those activities under H.R. 970 would be subject to 
appropriation. Furthermore, FAA's authority to carry out those 
measures would be contingent on enactment of legislation that 
reauthorizes appropriations for FAA's programs that 
traditionally receive funding for facilities and equipment 
related to the air traffic control system and for grants to 
airports. Because of that contingency, this estimate does not 
include any additional spending to fully implement those 
research initiatives, which CBO estimates would cost about $650 
million over the 2011-2016 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. That amount is based on information from 
the FAA about the cost of research and development activities 
related to airports and the air traffic control system.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 970 contains 
no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on 
the Private Sector: Samuel Wice.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     XV. Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

               XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

               XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                   XVIII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1001. Short title

    This section establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act 
of 2011''.

Sec. 1002. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used in this 
Act.

Sec. 1003. Authorization of appropriations

    This section amends existing law and authorizes 
$165,020,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $146,827,000 for each of 
the fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

Sec. 1004. Unmanned aircraft systems

    Section 1004 requires FAA to conduct research on 
technologies and methods to assess the risk of, and prevent the 
failure of, products, parts and processes used in any unmanned 
aircraft system that operates in the national airspace system. 
Also requires human factors research on operating unmanned 
aircraft systems, and development of simulation models that 
realistically emulate the national airspace system for research 
on operating a UAS with general aviation and commercial 
aircraft.

Sec. 1005. Research on runways

    This section authorizes the FAA to maintain a program of 
research and technology related to improved runway surfaces and 
engineered material restraining systems for runways at both 
general aviation airports and airports with commercial air 
carriers.

Sec. 1006. Research on design for certification

    Section 1006 requires FAA to conduct research on methods to 
improve the timeliness of certification for new technologies to 
be used in the national airspace system. Within 6 months 
following the date of enactment, requires the development of a 
research plan that contains the research objectives, proposed 
tasks, milestone, and a 5-year budgetary profile. Directs the 
FAA to engage the National Research Council for an independent 
review of the plan, and to provide their results to the House 
and Senate committees of jurisdiction.

Sec. 1007. Airport Cooperative Research Program

    This section amends existing law to extend the Airport 
Cooperative Research Program.

Sec. 1008. Centers of Excellence

    Section 1008 amends existing law, stating that the U.S. 
Government's share of establishing and operating a center and 
associated research activities shall not exceed 50 percent and 
further provides that only if the Administrator determines that 
without additional funds the center would be unable to carry 
out the authorized activities such share may be increased to a 
maximum of 75 percent. Requires an annual report to Congress 
that lists the research projects carried out by each Center of 
Excellence, amounts and sources of funding, and the 
institutions participating in each project.

Sec. 1009. Center of Excellence for Aviation Human Resource Research

    This section outlines that out of available agency funds, 
the Administrator may establish a center of excellence to 
conduct research on human performance in the air transportation 
system environment, including research on air traffic 
controllers, dispatchers, and pilots. May also conduct related 
lines of research, development and evaluation of training 
programs for air traffic controllers, aviation safety 
inspectors, airway transportation safety specialists, and 
engineers, as well as best practices for recruitment into the 
aviation field for industry critical positions.

Sec. 1010. Interagency research on aviation and the environment

    Section 1010 permits the FAA, in coordination with NASA, to 
continue in its discretion a research program to assess the 
effect of aviation on the environment, and if warranted, to 
evaluate approaches to mitigate it. Requires a research plan 
and stipulates that the plan include an inventory of current 
interagency research being conducted in this area, future 
research objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a five 
year budget profile. The plan is to be delivered to Congress 
within one year after enactment.

Sec. 1011. Aviation Fuel Research and Development Program

    Section 1011 requires the FAA, in coordination with NASA, 
to continue research and development activities to qualify an 
unleaded aviation fuel for piston engine aircraft, and to 
safely transition this technology. Not later than 120 days 
following enactment, FAA is to develop a research plan 
including objectives, timetable, and recommended policies and 
guidelines needed to facilitate a transition to unleaded fuel. 
Directs the FAA to work with aviation fuel consumers, fuel 
producers, and industry. Requires FAA to report to Congress 
within 270 days of enactment on the plan and recommended 
policies and guidelines.

Sec. 1012. Research program on alternative jet fuel technology for 
        civil aircraft

    This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
conduct research related to developing and certifying jet fuel 
from alternative sources (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, 
ethanol, butanol, and hydrogen) through grants or other 
arrangements, including reimbursable agreements with other 
government agencies. Directs the Secretary to provide for 
participation by educational and research institutions.

Sec. 1013. Review of FAA's energy- and environment-related research 
        programs

    This section requires the FAA to conduct a review of the 
agency's energy- and environment-related research programs, and 
to provide Congress with a report on the review within 18 
months of enactment.

Sec. 1014. Review of FAA's aviation safety-related research programs

    This section directs the FAA to review all of the agency's 
aviation-safety related research programs as well as assess the 
usefulness of safety surveys. A report of the review is due 
within 14 months of enactment.

       XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART III--SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 445--FACILITIES, PERSONNEL, AND RESEARCH

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 44504. Improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and 
                    appliances

  (a) * * *
  (b) Research.--The Administrator shall conduct or supervise 
research--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) to develop advanced aircraft fuels with low 
        flammability and technologies that will contain 
        aircraft fuels to minimize post-crash fire hazards; 
        [and]
          (7) to develop technologies and methods to assess the 
        risk of and prevent defects, failures, and malfunctions 
        of products, parts, processes, and articles 
        manufactured for use in aircraft, aircraft engines, 
        propellers, and appliances that could result in a 
        catastrophic failure of an aircraft[.]; and
          (8) in conjunction with other Federal agencies, as 
        appropriate, to develop technologies and methods to 
        assess the risk of and prevent defects, failures, and 
        malfunctions of products, parts, and processes for use 
        in all classes of unmanned aircraft systems that could 
        result in a catastrophic failure of the unmanned 
        aircraft that would endanger other aircraft in the 
        national airspace system.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44505. Systems, procedures, facilities, and devices

  (a) * * *
  (b) Research on Human Factors and Simulation Models.--The 
Administrator shall conduct or supervise research--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) to identify innovative and effective corrective 
        measures for human errors that adversely affect air 
        safety; [and]
          (5) to develop dynamic simulation models of the air 
        traffic control system and airport design and operating 
        procedures that will provide analytical technology--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) to test proposed revisions in airport and 
                air traffic control operations programs[.];
          (6) to develop a better understanding of the 
        relationship between human factors and unmanned 
        aircraft system safety; and
          (7) to develop dynamic simulation models for 
        integrating all classes of unmanned aircraft systems 
        into the national airspace system without any 
        degradation of existing levels of safety for all 
        national airspace system users.
  (c) Research on Developing and Maintaining a Safe and 
Efficient System.--The Administrator shall conduct or supervise 
research on--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) improved runway surfaces;
          (4) engineered material restraining systems for 
        runways at both general aviation airports and airports 
        with commercial air carrier operations;
          [(3)] (5) human performance in the air transportation 
        environment;
          [(4)] (6) aviation safety and security;
          [(5)] (7) the supply of trained air transportation 
        personnel, including pilots and mechanics; and
          [(6)] (8) other aviation issues related to developing 
        and maintaining a safe and efficient air transportation 
        system.
  (d) Research on Design for Certification.--
          (1) Research.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and 
        Development Reauthorization Act of 2011, the 
        Administrator shall conduct research on methods and 
        procedures to improve both confidence in and the 
        timeliness of certification of new technologies for 
        their introduction into the national airspace system.
          (2) Research plan.--Not later than 6 months after the 
        date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and 
        Development Reauthorization Act of 2011, the 
        Administrator shall develop a plan for the research 
        under paragraph (1) that contains the objectives, 
        proposed tasks, milestones, and 5-year budgetary 
        profile.
          (3) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into an 
        arrangement with the National Research Council to 
        conduct an independent review of the plan developed 
        under paragraph (2) and shall provide the results of 
        that review to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
        Technology of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
        the Senate not later than 18 months after the date of 
        enactment of the Federal Aviation Research and 
        Development Reauthorization Act of 2011.
  [(d)] (e) Cooperative Agreements.--The Administrator may 
enter into cooperative agreements on a cost-shared basis with 
Federal and non-Federal entities that the Administrator may 
select in order to conduct, encourage, and promote aviation 
research, engineering, and development, including the 
development of prototypes and demonstration models.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44511. Aviation research grants

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Airport Cooperative Research Program.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation 
        shall [establish a 4-year pilot] maintain an airport 
        cooperative research program to--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Report.--[Not later than 6 months after the 
        expiration of the program under this subsection,] Not 
        later than September 30, 2012, the Secretary shall 
        transmit to the Congress a report on the [program, 
        including recommendations as to the need for 
        establishing a permanent airport cooperative research 
        program] program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 44513. Regional centers of air transportation excellence

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Government's Share of Costs.--The United States 
Government's share of a grant under this section is 50 percent 
of the costs of establishing and operating the center and 
related research activities that the grant recipient carries 
out.]
  (f) Government's Share of Costs.--The United States 
Government's share of establishing and operating a center and 
all related research activities that grant recipients carry out 
shall not exceed 50 percent of the costs, except that the 
Administrator may increase such share to a maximum of 75 
percent of the costs for any fiscal year if the Administrator 
determines that a center would be unable to carry out the 
authorized activities described in this section without 
additional funds.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(h) Annual Report.--The Administrator shall transmit annually 
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate at the time of the President's 
budget request a report that lists--
          (1) the research projects that have been initiated by 
        each center in the preceding year;
          (2) the amount of funding for each research project 
        and the funding source;
          (3) the institutions participating in each project 
        and their shares of the overall funding for each 
        research project; and
          (4) the level of cost-sharing for each research 
        project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART C--FINANCING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 481--AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 48102. Research and development

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Not more than the 
following amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary of 
Transportation out of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
established under section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) for conducting civil aviation research 
and development under sections 44504, 44505, 44507, 44509, and 
44511-44513 [of this title] of this title and, for each of 
fiscal years 2011 through 2014, under subsection (g):
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) for fiscal year 2006, $352,157,000, including--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (K) $9,862,000 for Airports Technology-
                Safety; and
                  (L) $7,906,000 for Airports Technology-
                Efficiency; [and]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (13) $171,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; [and]
          (14) $190,500,000 for fiscal year 2010[.];
          (15) for fiscal year 2011, $165,020,000; and
          (16) for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2014, 
        $146,827,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Specific Authorizations.--The following programs 
described in the research, engineering, and development account 
of the national aviation research plan required under section 
44501(c) are authorized:
          (1) Fire Research and Safety.
          (2) Propulsion and Fuel Systems.
          (3) Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.
          (4) Atmospheric Hazards--Aircraft Icing/Digital 
        System Safety.
          (5) Continued Airworthiness.
          (6) Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention 
        Research.
          (7) Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human 
        Factors.
          (8) System Safety Management.
          (9) Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human 
        Factors.
          (10) Aeromedical Research.
          (11) Weather Program.
          (12) Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research.
          (13) NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation.
          (14) Joint Planning and Development Office.
          (15) NextGen--Wake Turbulence Research.
          (16) NextGen--Air Ground Integration Human Factors.
          (17) NextGen--Self Separation Human Factors.
          (18) NextGen--Weather Technology in the Cockpit.
          (19) Environment and Energy Research.
          (20) NextGen Environmental Research--Aircraft 
        Technologies, Fuels, and Metrics.
          (21) System Planning and Resource Management.
          (22) The William J. Hughes Technical Center 
        Laboratory Facility.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          XX. Dissenting Views

    The need for a long term Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) reauthorization act is clear. The lack of one makes long 
term planning at the agency difficult at a time when the agency 
is working to implement substantial changes to the nation's air 
traffic control system. While H.R. 970 reauthorizes the FAA's 
research and development programs for four years. the arbitrary 
spending cuts that our Republican colleagues have imposed on 
the agency in H.R. 970 will devastate FAA's ability to improve 
flying safety and modernize the air traffic control system. For 
this reason we cannot support the bill.
    H.R. 970 makes a 23% cut to FAA's research, engineering, 
and development accounts from the funding levels enacted by 
Congress for fiscal year 2010. These cuts are made simply to 
conform to an arbitrary and poorly considered level of spending 
reductions, and are not related in any way to a lack of need 
for the research. The reality is that in multiple hearings 
before this Congress in both the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
expert witnesses have stressed the importance of investing in 
both R&D and in the NextGen modernization initiative and have 
warned of the negative impact that cuts will have on the 
nation's air traffic control system and the flying public.
    Former Bush Administration FAA Administrator Marion Blakey 
noted that:
          ``The civil aviation industry is an economic engine 
        directly and indirectly contributing more than 1.3 
        trillion dollars--or 5.6 percent of gross domestic 
        product--to the U.S. economy. It supports nearly 11 
        million jobs with a payroll of 369 billion dollars.''
    However she also cautioned that:
          ``Safely expanding the capacity of our national 
        airspace system and addressing growing environmental 
        and energy concerns are two of the most significant 
        challenges facing the U.S. civil aviation industry.''
    In short, it is an industry that faces serious challenges 
to continued growth that must be addressed through research and 
development. To cut these R&D efforts so drastically while we 
are trying to recover from a recession, and while oil prices 
climb ever higher, risks stifling the aviation industry and the 
millions of jobs it supports.
    Equally importantly, the research and development work that 
is done at FAA also helps to protect everyone who flies. The 
cuts to aviation safety-related research made in H.R. 970 will 
undoubtedly reduce the safety of our air transportation system 
if enacted into law. These effects may not be felt today or 
tomorrow, but they will be felt and will have serious 
consequences for the safety of the flying public. Democratic 
Members of the Committee attempted to prevent cuts to three key 
safety research initiatives at the Committee's markup of H.R. 
970. These amendments, if adopted, would have increased the 
four year authorization amount by a total of $16 million, or 
less than 3% of the $600 million authorized in the bill. As 
noted in the Committee markup, these costs pale in comparison 
to the costs of even a single major aircraft accident, both in 
terms of money and in the loss of life. The amendments would 
have:
          Prevented cuts to atmospheric hazards and aircraft 
        icing research in order to provide FAA with the level 
        of resources needed to perform research to reduce the 
        number of accidents or potential accidents associated 
        with aircraft icing. (Miller amendment failed by a 
        party-line recorded vote, 16-13);
          Prevented cuts to fire research and safety work in 
        order to provide FAA with the funding necessary to 
        perform research to reduce the number of accidents 
        associated with aircraft fires, to mitigate the effects 
        of a post-crash ground fire, and to help people survive 
        an aircraft fire. (McNerney amendment failed by a 
        party-line recorded vote, 17-11); and, 
          Prevented cuts to crew and maintenance human factors 
        research in order to provide FAA with the necessary 
        funds to carry out research to reduce errors by pilots, 
        inspectors, and maintenance technicians. (Edwards 
        amendment failed by a party-line recorded vote 17-13).
    It is unfortunate that all of our Republican colleagues at 
the markup voted to reject these amendments. The choice before 
the Committee could not have been clearer: invest in needed 
safety R&D or embrace cuts to that research that will wind up 
making the flying public less safe simply to meet an arbitrary 
goal for cutting federal spending. The Democratic Members of 
the Committee share our colleagues' concern about the nation's 
deficit, but we reject the notion that addressing the nation's 
deficit requires us to make our nation's transportation system 
less safe.
    As we move forward to negotiations with the Senate over a 
final FAA reauthorization, we remain committed to ensuring the 
safety of our nation's air transportation system, and we hope 
that our Republican colleagues ultimately will join us in that 
effort.

                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Daniel Lipinski.
                                   Donna F. Edwards.
                                   Marcia Fudge.
                                   Jerry McNerney.
                                   Frederica Wilson.



XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 970, THE FEDERAL 
     AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Hall. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology will come to order. Pursuant to notice, 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology meets today to 
consider the following measures: H.R. 970, the Federal Aviation 
Research and Development Act of 2011.
    As it is a tradition on this Committee, without objection, 
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. 
It is so ordered.
    We will now proceed with a markup, again, with opening 
statements, and I will begin to take as much time as I require, 
so long as it is not over five minutes.
    Today our committee is going to consider H.R. 970, the 
Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act 
of 2011. The bill was introduced on March 9th and referred to 
our Committee.
    H.R. 970 authorizes Federal Aviation Administration's 
Research and Development programs for fiscal years 2011 through 
2014. For fiscal year 2011, the authorization amount is a 
hybrid of the current R&D spending level and the fiscal year 
2008 enacted. For fiscal years 2012 through 2014, the bill 
authorizes at the 2008 enacted level.
    Many of the provisions in H.R. 970 have been adapted from 
FAA R&D bills considered during the previous two Congresses and 
should be well known to FAA and the aviation community. They 
are focused and essential policy initiatives that will sustain 
the excellent research now underway at FAA, including research 
on unmanned aircraft systems, design for certification, 
alternative jet fuel technologies, and aviation's effect on the 
environment.
    Last month, under the leadership of Chairman Palazzo, the 
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
FAA's research and development program. Witnesses from FAA, 
industry, an external advisory committee to FAA, and the 
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, 
testified about ongoing research activities and their 
effectiveness in supporting the agency's diverse missions.
    It should not come as a surprise to anyone that frequent 
mention was made of the Next Generation Air Transportation 
System program, which is by far the largest development program 
underway at FAA as it endeavors to modernize the air traffic 
control system. Discussions were also heard about research that 
is very important to the general aviation community and the 
operation of unmanned aircraft systems in our national 
airspace.
    As Members are aware, once H.R. 970 is reported by our 
Committee, it is our expectation that our bill will be included 
as part of the larger FAA reauthorization bill, H.R. 658, which 
was recently reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. As the Committee with the expertise in civil 
aviation research and development activities, it is important 
that we develop this piece of the larger package.
    H.R. 658 reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration 
except for the R&D programs. It covers the same four-year 
period and holds the agency's budget to the fiscal year 2008 
spending level. By reporting the bill before us this morning, 
we will ensure that the broader FAA reauthorization bill will 
include an R&D title, thus enabling the agency's goals of 
increasing the capacity, efficiency, safety and reliability of 
our nation's civil aviation system through a robust research 
and development program.
    I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 970.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Hall follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall
    Today our committee will consider H.R. 970, The Federal Aviation 
Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2011. The bill was 
introduced on March 9 and referred to our Committee.
    H.R. 970 authorizes Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 
Research and Development (R&D) programs for fiscal years 2011 through 
2014. For Fiscal Year 2011, the authorization amount is a hybrid of the 
current R&D spending level and the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted. For Fiscal 
Years 2012 through 2014, the bill authorizes at the 2008 enacted level.
    Many of the provisions in H.R. 970 have been adapted from FAA R&D 
bills considered during the previous two Congresses and should be well 
known to FAA and the aviation community. They are focused and essential 
policy initiatives that will sustain the excellent research now 
underway at FAA, including research on unmanned aircraft systems, 
design for certification, alternative jet fuel technologies, and 
aviation's effect on the environment.
    Last month, under the leadership of Chairman Palazzo, the Space and 
Aeronautics Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on FAA's research 
and development program. Witnesses from FAA, industry, an external 
advisory committee to FAA, and the Inspector General of the Department 
of Transportation, testified about ongoing research activities and 
their effectiveness in supporting the agency's diverse missions.
    It should not come as a surprise that frequent mention was made of 
the Next Generation Air Transportation System program, which is by far 
the largest development program underway at FAA as it endeavors to 
modernize the air traffic control system. Discussions were also heard 
about research important to the general aviation community and the 
operation of unmanned aircraft systems in our national airspace.
    As Members are aware, once H.R. 970 is reported by our Committee, 
it is our expectation our bill will be included as part of the larger 
FAA reauthorization bill, H.R. 658, which was recently reported by the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
    As the Committee with the expertise in civil aviation research and 
development activities, it is important that we develop this piece of 
the larger package.
    H.R. 658 reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration except 
for the R&D programs. It covers the same four year period and holds the 
agency's budget to the FY08 spending level. By reporting the bill 
before us this morning, we will ensure that the broader FAA 
reauthorization bill will include an R&D title, thus enabling the 
agency's goals of increasing the capacity, efficiency, safety and 
reliability of our nation's civil aviation system through a robust 
research and development program.
    I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 970, and I now 
recognize the gentlelady from Texas for an opening statement.

    Chairman Hall. I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas 
for her opening statement, Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning to everyone.
    As we prepare to mark up legislation to reauthorize the 
Federal Aviation Administration's research and development 
programs, I think we do need to keep in mind what is at stake. 
Aviation is one of the cornerstones of modern commerce and 
vital to both our economy and our quality of life. As a result, 
research tools have improved aviation safety and modernized our 
air transportation system and are critical to the continued 
health of the Nation's economy and to creating and keeping good 
jobs in America.
    As former President Bush Administration FAA Administrator 
Marion Blakey said when she testified before the House 
Transportation Committee last month, the civil aviation 
industry is an economic engine directly and indirectly 
contributing more than $1.3 trillion or 5.6 percent of gross 
domestic product to the U.S. economy. It supports nearly 11 
million jobs with a payroll of $369 billion. She also testified 
that safely expanding the capacity of our national air space 
system and addressing growing environmental and energy concerns 
are two of the most significant challenges facing the U.S. 
civil aviation industry today. So we are not talking about 
nice-to-haves here. We are talking about investments that are 
essential to the continued health of our nation's aviation 
system.
    In short, today's markup is about ensuring safety, creating 
jobs and protecting the flying public. Mr. Chairman, while I 
certainly appreciate your good faith in attempting to 
reauthorize these important R&D programs, I cannot agree with 
the level of funding provided in H.R. 970 for these important 
R&D activities.
    Members need to be clear about what is being proposed in 
this bill. Namely this bill proposes a 23 percent reduction to 
the FAA's research, engineering, and development accounts from 
the funding enacted by Congress in fiscal year 2010. Twenty-
three percent. That cut is being proposed despite clear 
testimony from witnesses before the Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee at last month's hearing on FAA's R&D and NextGen 
programs, that the level of funding currently being invested in 
R&D by FAA is appropriate. Certainly no one at that hearing 
advocated cutting the R&D.
    Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that the cuts contained 
in this legislation are going to wind up jeopardizing the 
safety of the flying public and the continued viability of our 
aviation system. It may not happen today or next week, but 
sooner or later we are going to see the bad consequences of 
neglecting these critically important investments. When that 
day comes, I do not want to be on that plane with you headed to 
Dallas because we will stop somewhere in Tennessee.
    Chairman Hall. Memphis.
    Ms. Johnson. Memphis? Okay. So I stood by while Congress 
cut the research that is vital to the continued well-being of 
this important sector of our economy and to the continued safe 
operation of the Nation's aviation system. I can't believe any 
of my colleagues want to do that, either. Yet, we are being 
told that we must cut these programs simply to meet an 
arbitrary budget-cutting target, not a target that is based on 
any detailed and thoughtful review of the programs in question, 
funding reductions that cut critically important research on 
fire safety, aircraft icing, weight turbulence, aviation noise 
and emissions, human factors and weather monitoring technology 
in the cockpit, as well as research required for NextGen. The 
most needed modernization of the Nation's air traffic control 
system really does not make much sense. Yet, that is what is 
being proposed in this bill. All of us in this room depend on 
our aviation system, and we need to understand what the impact 
of these cuts will be. They will hurt our airlines that are 
seeking increased efficiencies to help cope with jet fuel 
expenses that increase the annual bill by $175 million for 
every penny increase per gallon in jet fuel costs, and they 
will hurt our airports. They will hurt the environment by 
limiting work to lessen the impact of our air transportation 
noise on our communities and harmful aircraft emissions into 
the atmosphere. They will hurt America's aviation-related 
workforce. They will impede research to improve the safety of 
the flying public, and they will slow efforts to reduce 
congestion and improve the efficiency of the Nation's air 
transportation system.
    That said, I know that a number of my democratic colleagues 
intend to offer amendments to try to limit the damage that 
would be done by this bill if it were to become law, and I 
intend to support these amendments. I hope that Members on both 
sides of the aisle will give the amendments serious 
consideration so that we can stand up for the flying public, 
for safety and for jobs.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, I must express my disappointment 
in the Committee's very first markup of the 112th Congress. A 
decision was made to abandon regular order and by pass 
subcommittee consideration of this legislation. It is clear to 
all of us that the FAA bill that passed the House 
Transportation Committee is not going to be embraced anytime 
soon by the Senate, even if it is voted out of the House at the 
end of the month. So there is no reason that the Committee had 
to deviate from the regular order that we have been assured the 
Committee would follow in the 112th Congress. I hope that this 
will not be a continued practice by the Committee when future 
legislation comes for consideration.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I love you, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Mr. Hall, and good morning. As we prepare to mark up 
legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration's 
research and development programs, I think that we need to keep in mind 
what is at stake.
    Aviation is one of the cornerstones of modern commerce and vital to 
both our economy and our quality of life.
    As a result, research tools to improve aviation safety and 
modernize our air transportation system are critical to the continued 
health of the nation's economy and to creating and keeping good jobs in 
America.
    As former Bush Administration FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said 
when she testified before the House Transportation Committee last 
month:
    ``The civil aviation industry is an economic engine directly and 
indirectly contributing more than 1.3 trillion dollars--or 5.6 percent 
of gross domestic product--to the U.S. economy. It supports nearly 11 
million jobs with a payroll of 369 billion dollars.''
    She also testified that:
    ``Safely expanding the capacity of our national airspace system and 
addressing growing environmental and energy concerns are two of the 
most significant challenges facing the U.S. civil aviation industry 
today.''
    So we are not talking about ``nice-to-haves'', here. We are talking 
about investments that are essential to the continued health of our 
nation's aviation system.
    In short, today's markup is about ensuring safety, creating jobs, 
and protecting the flying public.
    Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate your good faith in 
attempting to reauthorize these important R&D programs, I cannot agree 
with the level of funding provided in H.R. 970 for these important R&D 
activities.
    Members need to be clear about what is being proposed in this bill. 
Namely, this bill proposes a 23% reduction to FAA's research, 
engineering, and development accounts from the funding enacted by 
Congress for FY 2010.
    Twenty-three percent . . .
    That cut is being proposed despite clear testimony from witnesses 
before the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee at last month's hearing 
on FAA's R&D and NextGen programs that the level of funding currently 
being invested in R&D by FAA is appropriate--certainly no one at that 
hearing advocated cutting R&D.
    Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that the cuts contained in this 
legislation are going to wind up jeopardizing the safety of the flying 
public and the continued viability of our aviation system.
    It may not happen today or next week, but sooner or later we are 
going to see the bad consequences of neglecting these critically 
important investments.
    When that day comes, I do not want to have to look back and say 
that I stood by while Congress cut the research that is vital to the 
continued wellbeing of this important sector of our economy and to the 
continued safe operation of the nation's aviation system. I can't 
believe any of my colleagues want to do so either.
    Yet we are being told we must cut these programs simply to meet an 
arbitrary budget-cutting target--not a target that is based on any 
detailed or thoughtful review of the programs in question.
    Funding reductions that cut critically important research on fire 
safety, aircraft icing, wake turbulence, aviation noise and emissions, 
human factors, and weather monitoring technology in the cockpit--as 
well as research required for NextGen, the much-needed modernization of 
the nation's air traffic control system--make no sense.
    Yet that is what is being proposed in this bill.
    All of us in this room depend on our aviation system, and we need 
to understand what the impact of these cuts will be:

          They will hurt our airlines that are seeking 
        increased efficiencies to help cope with jet fuel expenses that 
        increase their annual bill by $175 million for every penny 
        increase per gallon in jet fuel costs; and they will hurt our 
        airports;

          They will hurt the environment by limiting work to 
        lessen the impact of air transportation noise on our 
        communities and harmful aircraft emissions into the atmosphere;

          They will hurt America's aviation-related workforce.

          They will impede research to improve the safety of 
        the flying public; and

          They will slow efforts to reduce congestion and 
        improve the efficiency of the nation's air transportation 
        system.

    That said, I know that a number of my Democratic colleagues intend 
to offer amendments to try to limit the damage that would be done by 
this bill if it were to become law, and I intend to support those 
amendments.
    I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will give the 
amendments serious consideration so that we can stand up for the flying 
public, for safety, and for jobs.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must express disappointment that in this 
Committee's very first markup of the 112th Congress, a decision was 
made to abandon regular order and bypass subcommittee consideration of 
this legislation.
    It is clear to all of us that the FAA bill that passed the House 
Transportation Committee is not going to be embraced anytime soon by 
the Senate even if it is voted out of the House at the end of this 
month, so there is no reason that this Committee had to deviate from 
the regular order that we had been assured the Committee would follow 
in the 112th Congress.
    I hope that this will not be a continued practice by the Committee 
when future legislation comes up for consideration.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Hall. I thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that. Without 
objection, all Member opening statements will be placed in the 
record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
          Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's markup 
        to consider H.R. 970, the FAA Research and Development 
        Reauthorization Act of 2011.

          This legislation will reauthorize research and 
        development (R&D) programs at the Federal Aviation 
        Administration (FAA) that are vital to the safety, security, 
        and efficiency of the civil aviation industry and the flying 
        public. FAA's researchers and engineers work in collaboration 
        with industry and colleges and universities around the country 
        to develop new materials, technology, and practices to ensure 
        civil aviation continues to create jobs and keep the flying 
        public safe.

          While I am pleased H.R. 970 will provide a long-term 
        reauthorization of these programs, I am deeply concerned about 
        the funding levels authorized by the legislation.

          As I have said before, I believe every federal agency 
        can afford to make cuts in certain areas. But we must make 
        certain those cuts do not affect the safety and security of the 
        flying public. In a hearing before the House Transportation and 
        Infrastructure Committee, FAA Administrator Randy Babbit and 
        members of the aviation industry testified on the impact of 
        these cuts. Their message was simple; cutting funding to 2008 
        levels will harm essential safety programs and hinder the 
        aviation industry.

          Despite those warnings, this measure arbitrarily cuts 
        FAA R&D funding back to 2008 and provides no authorized funding 
        levels for specific research programs. The cuts contained in 
        this bill will take us backwards, negatively affect safety and 
        security, and halt job creation at a time when jobs are needed 
        most.

          In 2007, 2009, and 2010, the House passed an FAA 
        Reauthorization bill with bipartisan support that funded R&D 
        programs at reasonable levels that allowed them to move forward 
        with their research and improve the safety and security of 
        aviation. These levels were carefully considered and reflect 
        the priorities and plans laid out by FAA in the 2010 National 
        Aviation Research Plan.

          Several of my colleagues will offer amendments to 
        return key safety and security R&D programs to reasonable FY10 
        funding levels. If we want to keep the flying public safe and 
        prevent tragic crashes and other incidents, restoring this 
        funding is imperative. I encourage my colleagues to support 
        these amendments.

          As I have said before, a long-term FAA 
        Reauthorization, including reauthorization of these R&D 
        programs, is necessary to provide certainty to the aviation 
        industry and keep the industry moving forward. The funding 
        levels in this bill will not meet that goal.

          I am hopeful we can work together to improve this 
        legislation as it moves to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Hall. And I have listened carefully, Ms. Johnson, 
to what you said, and senior members of this Committee can well 
remember some mistakes that have been made when you cut the 
budget too much or too little.
    I remember at a time, oh, back in the last century--it is 
hard to say that--when the Vice President told us we had to cut 
25 percent out of the NASA program, and at that time I was a 
Democrat. I was a conservative Democrat, and the chairman was a 
guy from New York who was a fairly liberal Republican. And the 
book on us at that time was that I would keep him from spending 
all the money on the whales, and he would keep me from drilling 
on cemetery lots. But there was a difference in us.
    And we called in, I believe Mr. Goldin who was head then, 
and told him pursuant to the Vice President who was kind of 
guiding us then and that was in charge of space and things like 
that, that we had to cut it 25 percent. And we told Mr. Goldin 
that we could cut it, but we didn't know how to cut it where 
safety was involved as much as it is, and that he could cut it 
skillfully or we would cut it with a baseball bat. He 
skillfully cut it, but he cut 34 percent out of it and that was 
the beginning of the end of NASA. That was the beginning of our 
downward trend. He cut it way too much, and that can happen. I 
am aware of that.
    We will now consider H.R. 970.
    Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that the bill is 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point, that the 
reading of the amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
was noticed along with the bill be dispensed with and that the 
Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster, 
and it is so ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by me.
    The Clerk shall read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 342, amendment in the nature of 
a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. Hall of Texas.
    Chairman Hall. The reading, having already been dispensed 
with, now as I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute is very simple. 
It includes a new Title 10 designation and renumbers the 
sections of H.R. 970 accordingly. Making these changes will 
allow our bill to be easily incorporated if necessary as a 
research title into a larger FAA reauthorization package. In 
every other respect, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is identical to the introduced bill.
    By taking this step, we will make it easier for the House 
to move efficiently to include the Committee's language in an 
FAA reauthorization packet.
    I urge all Members to support this amendment. I now 
recognize Ms. Johnson for any comments she may have on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not support the 
substitute, but I think that after we consider the next 
amendments, I might have a change of heart.
    Chairman Hall. Before we change Ms. Johnson's heart, does 
anybody else want to----
    Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Neugebauer. I don't recall changing anybody's heart, 
but my heart is in the right place.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and you 
know, this Congress has been working on FAA reauthorization for 
an extremely long period of time, and hopefully we are going to 
finally get that ball across the line. But I think it is 
important and I think that this bill that we are considering 
today funds the FAA at 2008 levels. And of course, what this is 
going to do, and that is an okay process, is going to force all 
of these agencies to do more with less. But quite honestly, 
that is what the American people and families all across this 
country are having to do. They are having to make choices. They 
are having to make their money go further. And so certainly, 
they have a right to expect that from government as well.
    I had planned to offer an amendment with this bill on a 
project that I have been working on for the last four years, 
and that has to do with safety. What we do know in our country 
is that there are towers and other obstacles out there that can 
impact air safety. And in my particular Congressional district, 
we now enjoy being the Congressional district in the country 
that has the largest wind farm I think now in the world, in my 
Congressional district. And it is providing an additional 
source of power for America. But there are other obstacles--we 
have radio towers and cell towers and all of these. And so what 
I have been working on is a piece of legislation that would ask 
the FAA to conduct a study on the feasibility of FAA 
maintaining a database in the FAA if it is available to the 
aviation industry but also, not only just to the aviation 
industry, but also to those people that are developing 
infrastructure that has some potential impact of having 
influence on flight patterns or radar locations so that people 
can know where these objects are before they begin to develop 
those projects.
    I just think it makes sense and with the technology that we 
have today, if that database was being maintained with the 
actual GPS location of each one of those, a lot of the software 
that people in aviation and others use would be able to be 
downloaded and be able to be used and make our airways safer. 
But also from the development standpoint of people planning 
projects, they would know in advance where there are sensitive 
sites that a location of a particular tower or structure might 
impede safety. Not only are we talking about radar for air 
traffic control, but we are also talking about weather radar 
where some of these objects could impede the ability for people 
in the weather business to give advanced notice of storms and 
so forth.
    And I think this is an important piece of legislation. It 
really probably fits within the purview of this Committee 
because it is basically about research. But we have been 
working with the T&I committee on this piece of legislation, 
and so we have out of respect to the work we are doing with 
them, we are not going to offer this amendment today.
    But I did want the Committee as a whole to be aware of 
that, and as this bill hopefully moves forward in the house, 
that you would be supportive of that particular initiative 
because I think long term, it has a real benefit not only to 
the aviation industry but also to the industries that are 
planning structures that could impede and cause hazards for the 
aviation industry.
    And so with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me a 
little bit of time here this morning, and I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. Thank you. You used exactly five minutes. 
Very good, well-planned, and I agree with you and I know you 
have a particular problem in West Texas with the wind mills and 
all that. I am told that the hairdressers there are complaining 
that T. Boone Pickens' windmills are blowing their clients' 
hair once they get outside. I don't know if you have that much 
or not.
    Mr. Neugebauer. That much hair or what?
    Chairman Hall. This amendment is----
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I don't have that problem.
    Chairman Hall. You don't need any help. You are one of my 
favorites, and you know it, don't you?
    This simply includes a new title to make it fit into the 
big bill that we are having to work with. Thank you, Mr. 
Neugebauer, for your statement. I agree that the FAA has the 
responsibility to provide for the safety of all users in all of 
the U.S. airspace, including West Texas. And I would be 
interested in further pursuing this topic of potential aviation 
obstructions for low-flying aircraft and their related safety 
concerns because we are going to have to have that if we ever 
write an immigration bill. That is something that needs to be 
worked into it, and I thank you for your--we will have a vote 
on.
    Is there anyone else who cares to be heard?
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from where? The gentleman not 
from California but from Georgia, I recognize you for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take a 
moment or two. Part of this bill is to get the FAA to do 
research in alternative fuel, both for piston-powered aircraft 
as well as jet aircraft.
    I am a good southern boy, Mr. Chairman, and I love my grits 
and cornbread. It makes no sense to me to drive down the road 
burning up my groceries, and I hope the FAA, as they do that 
research and development, as we do need to find alternative 
fuels, will not focus on corn-based ethanol because as the 
government has done so, it has raised the cost of all groceries 
for everybody in this country, rich and poor alike. In fact, I 
have got a producer, a chicken processor in my district, and he 
is having to up the price of his chickens for folks markedly 
because of the cost of corn being so high because this 
government is subsidizing corn-based ethanol fuels. And it 
makes no sense. It has been a total disaster as an alternative 
fuel, and I hope we will get away from that, Mr. Chairman, and 
I appreciate your giving me a minute or two to express my 
opinion on this. And I hope the FAA will look at other forms of 
fuel as we go forward with this research, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back, and I thank you 
for that. Anyone else care to be heard? There being no more 
discussion, are there any amendments to the amendment? Does 
anyone have--Mr. Miller? The gentleman from----
    Mr. Miller. I have a couple of amendments at the desk, the 
one on icing.
    Chairman Hall. Is your amendment number 346?
    Mr. Miller. Actually, it doesn't--yes.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Second amendment is offered by 
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Miller. I am. I move to dispense with the reading of 
the amendment. Does everyone have it?
    Chairman Hall. You have an amendment at the desk, do you 
not?
    Mr. Miller. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 346, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. Miller 
of North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. All right. I would ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes 
to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment assures 
that FAA's research into atmospheric hazards, including icing, 
is not cut below the fiscal year 2010 levels. The amendment 
adds money to the overall research account to ensure that the 
amendment does not harm other important research accounts.
    Anyone who has followed the news in the last couple of 
years, actually in the last generation or more, that aircraft 
icing has played a critical role in many catastrophic air 
crashes. The last couple years, a Colgan air flight bound for 
Buffalo, New York, crashed on approach killing all 49 on board 
and one person on the ground. Aircraft icing was found to be a 
contributing cause of that, and the Air France flight bound for 
Paris that plunged into the Atlantic in 2009, killing all 228 
people on board, the investigation there is not complete, but 
icing also appears to have been a critical factor in that 
accident.
    Those are the highest profile aviation accidents in the 
last couple of years, and both involved aircraft icing. The Air 
France disaster, in particular, show that equipment icing 
issues really calls for increased icing research. So I think it 
makes sense in the aftermath of those tragedies and many more 
before them that we make sure that FAA's funding for aircraft 
icing and atmospheric hazards research remain in place. And if 
you are only concerned about the cost of programs, this saves 
money regardless. Just on the Air France crash, we lost 
hundreds of millions of dollars. The search and rescue cost 
alone topped $40 million.
    So this makes economic sense. It is $1 million a year to 
make sure that we can avoid must greater costs, not just cost 
to the government but human cost. I urge support for the 
amendment, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Brad Miller
    My amendment is pretty straightforward. It ensures that FAA's 
research into Atmospheric Hazards, including Icing, is not cut below FY 
2010 levels. The first part of the amendment adds money to the overall 
Research account to ensure that this adjustment does not negatively 
impact the other important research accounts.
    As folks who have watched the news over the past few years should 
know, aircraft icing has played a critical role in several catastrophic 
air crashes. In 2009 a Colgan Air flight bound for Buffalo, NY, crashed 
on approach, killing all 49 on board and one additional person on the 
ground. Aircraft icing was a contributing cause to this horrible 
tragedy.
    People should also remember the Air France flight bound for Paris 
which plunged into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, killing all 228 people 
on board. While the investigation is ongoing, icing appears to have 
been a critical factor in this accident.
    These are perhaps the most high profile aviation accidents in 
recent years, and both involved aircraft icing. Moreover, the Air 
France disaster revealed equipment icing issues which call for the need 
for increased icing research. So I think it is appropriate that in the 
aftermath of these tragedies we maintain FAA's critical funding for 
aircraft icing and atmospheric hazards research.
    I'll also note to those on the other side of the aisle who are 
concerned about cost, that the monetary cost of the Air France crash 
alone will likely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The 
search and rescue costs alone have already topped $40 million dollars. 
A crash involving hundreds of millions of dollars in financial losses 
and hundreds of lives lost is not a very good way to learn lessons 
about aircraft icing.
    The prudent way to improve flying safety is to invest these modest 
amounts on research, so we don't have to learn our lessons only through 
tragedy. This is precisely what my amendment does. And it does it at a 
cost of only one million dollars a year. This is a good investment, and 
a necessary one to ensure the safety of the American flying public.
    I urge support for my amendment.

    Chairman Hall. I thank you, Mr. Miller, and while I 
appreciate your argument that your amendment restores a modest 
amount of funding to the FAA's Atmospheric Hazards program, I 
have to oppose the amendment and I do so for two reasons. 
First, as Members are keenly aware, this bill seeks to reduce 
federal spending by returning FAA's budget, including R&D 
funding, to the fiscal year 2008 funding level. It hurts, it is 
painful but it is also necessary if Congress is really serious 
about reducing the size of our deficit. I acknowledge that FAA 
research programs could do more if given more, but we simply 
don't have the money, and if we go down that slippery path, we 
are making an exception here. So where do we stop?
    Does anyone else care to be heard? I am sorry. I recognize, 
and I can't see your name. Ms. Fudge.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
I support this amendment because it increases safety within our 
nation's aviation systems. Ice formation on aircraft can 
disrupt the smooth flow of air over wings and prevent the 
aircraft from taking off. Most importantly, it can decrease the 
pilot's ability to maintain control of the aircraft. This could 
lead to a fatal flight event as Mr. Miller has just described.
    NASA Glen Research Center, located just outside of my 
district in Cleveland, Ohio, is a leader in aircraft icing 
research. In fact, the icing research tunnel at Glen is the 
world's largest refrigerated wind tunnel and has been ensuring 
flight safety for icing conditions since 1944.
    In addition to the tunnel, Glen is home to the icing 
research aircraft which allows for full-scale iced aircraft 
aerodynamic studies and the development of icing protection 
systems. Icing research means increased safety for the flying 
public. Yes, we are in tough fiscal times, but cutting icing 
research, like the research being performed at Glen, is not the 
answer. We cannot tighten our belts by compromising the safety 
of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fudge follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Representative Marcia L. Fudge
    I support this amendment because it increases safety within our 
country's aviation systems. Ice formation on aircraft can disrupt the 
smooth flow of air over the wings and prevent the aircraft from taking 
off. Most importantly, it can decrease the pilot's ability to maintain 
control of the aircraft.
    NASA Glenn Research Center, which is located just outside my 
district in Cleveland, Ohio, specializes in aircraft icing research. 
Glenn specializes in three capacities: Design analysis and tools, 
Aircraft ice protection, and Education & training.
    Design & Analysis Tools: A comprehensive, multi-disciplinary 
research effort aimed at development of tools that can aid aircraft 
manufacturers, sub system manufacturers, certification authorities, the 
military, and other government agencies in assessing the behavior of 
aircraft systems in an icing environment.
    Aircraft Ice Protection: This program element focuses on two main 
areas. The first is the development of remote sensing technologies to 
measure nearby icing conditions, improve current forecast capabilities, 
and develop systems to transfer and display information to flight 
crews, flight controllers, and dispatchers. Second is the development 
of systems to monitor and assess aircraft performance, notify the 
cockpit crew about the state of the aircraft, and/or automatically 
alter the aircraft controlling systems to prevent stall or loss of 
control in the icing environment.
    Education & Training: This program aims to develop materials that 
support knowledge about in-flight icing on the basics of icing weather, 
icing operations, and the impact of ice on the aircraft.

    Chairman Hall. Thank you. The gentlelady from Ohio yields 
back and states her position very well. We are trying to get 
this vote off before we have to go to the floor and vote.
    Is there anyone else who cares to be recognized?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman? Thirty seconds.
    Chairman Hall. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's 
amendment. As you know, I chaired the aviation subcommittee in 
the last Congress and am Ranking Member of the subcommittee in 
this Congress. So the program is working, it is working well. 
Both Mr. Petri and I and Mr. Mica held a roundtable discussion 
last year concerning this icing issue. The National 
Transportation and Safety Board has put it on their most wanted 
safety list in 1997. A lot of progress has been made, and in 
fact, there was testimony before the subcommittee in a hearing 
that we held from the Deputy Administrator for Safety at the 
FAA and also the head of the GAO that in fact the program was 
working, and more research and development are needed to 
determine exactly how to properly address the issue.
    So it is a safety issue, and I support the gentleman's 
amendment.
    Chairman Hall. Hopefully there are no more, but if anyone 
else wants to be heard we will take the time. We won't cut 
anybody off. But if there are no more, the vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor say aye, those opposed. And all of you 
say no.
    Ms. Johnson. Can we have a record vote?
    Chairman Hall. Record vote requested. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Oh, no. Is this on their objection? Yes. I 
am a Republican now.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. No.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey? Did someone say aye?
    [Voice.] No, Woolsey is not here.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Hall. The clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye and 16 Members 
vote no.



    Chairman Hall. On this vote, there are 13 ayes and how many 
no's? Sixteen no's. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Okay. Now we will recess until 10 minutes after the votes, 
the last vote. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Hall. Come to order. Are there other amendments to 
the amendment?
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. McNerney. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 347, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. 
McNerney of California.
    Chairman Hall. All right. I would ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
explain my amendment. Although many people may not fully 
appreciate this fact, the FAA is a major force behind much of 
the research and development that makes sure that aviation 
safety programs are up to date and able to deal with the 
constantly evolving technologies and practices. Specifically 
fire safety is vitally important in the aviation industry both 
to passengers and to people employed in the industry. With so 
much potential for combustion, both in the air and on the 
ground, it is important that strong measures are in place to 
ensure the safety of both passengers and those who work on the 
aircraft.
    That is why I am introducing an amendment that will 
maintain funding for the fire safety research at 2010 levels. 
The language of this amendment adds money to the overall 
research account to ensure that this adjustment does not affect 
any other important research accounts.
    If anyone has any doubts about why we need to preserve 
funding for this integral research, let me provide you with two 
examples. In 1998, a Swiss Air flight from New York to Geneva 
crashed into the Atlantic Ocean killing all 229 people on 
board. The cause of the accident was an in-flight fire which 
started above cockpit and ultimately led to a loss of control 
of the aircraft.
    The accident investigation to find the cause of the crash 
cost $38 million, but the total economic cost of the tragedy 
was much higher, and of course, this pales in comparison to the 
lives lost.
    You may also remember the TWA flight 800 which exploded off 
the coast of New York shortly after takeoff. This terrible 
accident which occurred in 1996 killed at 236 persons on board. 
The cause of the accident was determined most likely to be a 
short circuit which ignited the vapors in the fuel tank. As a 
result of the NTSB investigation into this accident, new FAA 
requirements were issued to prevent similar types of accidents 
in the future. Responding to such tragedies is of course 
necessary, but it is also a costly way to make up aircraft 
improvements. We should instead focus on making these 
improvements proactively to prevent accidents, and this can be 
achieved by investigations into fire safety research at the 
FAA.
    I know all of us want to keep the American public safe, and 
I urge you to support my amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry McNerney
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to explain the important amendment I'm 
offering to H.R. 970, the Federal Aviation Research and Development 
Reauthorization Act of 2011. Although many people may not fully 
appreciate this fact, the FAA is a major force behind much of the 
research and development that makes sure that the aviation safety 
programs are up to date and able to deal with constantly evolving 
technologies and practices.
    Specifically, fire safety is vitally important in the aviation 
industry, both to passengers and to people employed in the industry. 
With so much potential for combustion, both in the air and on the 
ground, it is important that strong measures are in place to ensure the 
safety of both passengers and those who work on the aircraft.
    That is why I am introducing an amendment that will maintain 
funding for fire safety research at 2010 levels. The language of this 
amendment adds money to the overall research account to ensure that 
this adjustment does not affect any other important research accounts. 
If anyone has any doubts about why we need to preserve funding for this 
integral research, let me provide a few examples.
    In 1998, a Swissair Flight from New York to Geneva crashed into the 
Atlantic Ocean, tragically killing all 229 people on board. The cause 
of the accident was an in-flight fire which started above the cockpit 
and ultimately led to a loss of control of the aircraft. The accident 
investigation to find the cause of the crash cost 38 million dollars. 
The total economic cost of the tragedy was much higher, and of course 
this total pales in comparison to the precious lives lost.
    You may also remember TWA Flight 800, which exploded off the coast 
of New York shortly after takeoff. This terrible accident, which 
occurred in 1996, killed all 230 persons on board. The cause of the 
accident was determined most likely to be a short circuit which ignited 
the vapors in the fuel tank. As a result of the NTSB investigation into 
this incident, new FAA requirements were issued to prevent similar 
types of accidents in the future. Responding after such tragedies is of 
course necessary, but it's also a costly way to make aircraft 
improvements.
    We should instead focus on making these improvements in advance of 
an accident, which can be achieved by investing in fire safety research 
at the FAA. I know all of us want to keep the American public safe, and 
I urge you to support my amendment.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

    Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman. I oppose the 
amendment. I recognize that the FAA's fire research program has 
led to very significant safety improvements in the commercial 
aviation industry here and abroad as the gentleman stated. Most 
recently their research on the cause of TWA flight 800 tank 
explosion led to the development of technology that will make 
modern jet aircraft much more immune to these types of 
accidents in the future. Having said that, the bill really does 
nothing to force FAA to reduce funding for fire research and 
safety activities. What the bill does is authorize FAA's 
research, engineering and development account at the fiscal 
year 2008 level. It does not authorize or cap specific funding 
for any of the underlying R&D activities, thus allowing FAA to 
direct resources to its highest priority programs or wherever 
they want to direct them. I urge Members to oppose the 
amendment.
    I will thank the Member for the amendment. Is there further 
discussion of the amendment? All right. A vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor say aye, no. The no's have it.
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I would call for a recorded 
vote.
    Chairman Hall. A recorded vote is called for. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Wu?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, Lucas, Oklahoma. Can I be recorded 
as no?
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. All right. Are there other Members who wish 
to vote?
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. State your name and give your service 
number.
    Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Hall. You are not recorded.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert is not recorded.
    Mrs. Biggert. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Chairman, how have I voted?
    Chairman Hall. You are not recorded.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo is not recorded.
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others coming in the room at this 
time who surely want to vote no? Mr. Hultgren votes----
    Mr. Hultgren. Hultgren votes no.
    Chairman Hall. --no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others who wish to be recorded? 
The clerk will report the vote, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members vote aye and 17 Members 
vote no.



    Chairman Hall. On this vote, the amendment is not agreed to 
by a vote of 11 ayes to 17 no's. Mr. Costello asks recognition.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, a unanimous consent that we go 
out of order and take my amendment up next pursuant to our 
conversation?
    Chairman Hall. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. 
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. I thank you very much. We have had a 
discussion, and my understanding is you have agreed to accept 
this amendment, so I won't mess it up, and I will be very 
brief. I will ask unanimous consent to distribute a revised 
amendment to the Committee to ensure funding from my amendment 
comes out of existing funds and does not increase the cost of 
the bill. I have made a technical correction to the amendment, 
and I would ask the clerk to pass it out as I explain the 
amendment.
    Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman. I understand that he 
would like to see more research by the Centers of Excellence 
into the human factors affecting aviation safety, and I believe 
this amendment will help the FAA to develop methods to enhance 
aviation safety and efficiency. I also note that the 
gentleman's amendment with the slight tweak he made to it does 
not add any additional spending and that the center authorized 
here is within the discretion of the administrator so that the 
FAA would use existing funds to perform this research. I 
support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and urge our 
colleagues to support it as well.
    Chairman Hall. Okay. I want to thank the Member for his 
amendment. If there is further discussion on the amendment, if 
no the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, 
those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
accepted.
    Okay. Are there other amendments?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. What purpose does the gentlelady----
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 348, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Ms. 
Edwards of Maryland.
    Chairman Hall. All right. I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not 
terribly complicated. It prevents cuts from being made to FAA's 
flight deck maintenance, system integration, human factors, 
activities within the research account by continuing these 
activities not at the fiscal year 2008 levels but the 2010 
levels. It is a two-part amendment. The first portion of the 
amendment adds money to the overall research account to ensure 
that this adjustment does not negatively impact the other 
important research accounts, and the second part specifies 
fiscal year 2010 funding levels be maintained for these 
activities for the life of the bill.
    First of all, let me put it into layman's terms what types 
of research occur within the flight deck maintenance, system 
integration, human factors account. This research at its core 
aims to reduce pilot and maintenance errors that lead to 
accidents. It is really that simple, and it is also critically 
important. Pilot and crew error remains the single largest 
cause of fatal aircraft accidents. Human errors in general 
constitute the primary cause of fatal aircraft accidents, and 
this includes non-flight deck personnel. A prime recent example 
that has been cited before is the 2009 Colgan air flight which 
crashed on approach to Buffalo. While icing was a factor in the 
accident as we have heard, the NTSB also found that crew 
actions were the primary cause of this crash that killed 50 
people, and sometimes we are talking about catastrophic 
accidents, but near-misses on runways, takeoff, landing where 
crew actions really are so important are of particular concern. 
And this is true for smaller airlines, for rural areas and for 
underserved areas where training and design of the flight deck 
and those things are really important in making determinations 
as to whether the crew in those critical moments can make the 
right decisions.
    Now, I understand the urge to address the federal deficit, 
but choosing rather arbitrary budget targets without 
consideration of the effects of the specific cuts being 
considered I think is pretty reckless and not very responsible. 
My amendment attempts to undo some of this by maintaining vital 
safety research at the agency. If you just actually look at the 
amount of money that is spent on investigations alone, it is a 
pittance of the cost of just investing in the research that 
would actually lead to better decision making.
    I want to thank Ranking Member Johnson and Mr. Costello and 
our work also on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
that intersects here for their leadership and for working with 
me on this important amendment. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for 
your consideration. It is really a small price to pay for 
safety of the flying public, and I urge support for my 
amendment. And with that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Donna F. Edwards
    My amendment is not complicated. It prevents cuts from being made 
to FAA's ``Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human Factors'' 
activities within the Research account, by continuing these activities 
at FY 2010 levels. It is a two part amendment. The first portion of the 
amendment adds money to the overall Research account to ensure that 
this adjustment does not negatively impact the other important research 
accounts, and the second part specifies FY 2010 funding levels be 
maintained for these activities for the life of the bill.
    First of all, let me put into laymen's terms what types of research 
occurs within the ``Flightdeck/Maintenance/System Integration Human 
Factors'' account. This research, at its core, aims to reduce pilot and 
maintenance errors which lead to accidents. It's that simple.
    It is also critically important. Pilot and crew error remains the 
single largest cause of fatal aircraft accidents. Human errors in 
general constitute the primary cause of fatal aircraft accidents, and 
this includes non-flightdeck personnel.
    A prime recent example is the 2009 Colgan Air flight which crashed 
on approach to Buffalo. While icing was a factor in the accident, the 
NTSB found that the crew's actions were the primary cause of this 
crash, which killed 50 people.
    I understand the urge to address the Federal deficit. But choosing 
arbitrary budget targets without any consideration of the effects of 
the specific cuts being considered is reckless and irresponsible. My 
amendment attempts to undo some of this recklessness by maintaining 
vital safety research at the agency.
    Make no mistake, this research saves lives. This research prevents 
deadly accidents from happening. Cutting this research will result in 
lives being lost. The effects may not be felt tomorrow, or the next 
day, but they will happen.
    I want to thank Ranking Member Johnson and Congressman Costello for 
their leadership and working with me on this important amendment. Thank 
you for your consideration Mr. Chairman. I urge support for my 
amendment and yield back.

    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back. I oppose the 
amendment. I do so for the very same reason that I raised 
against the amendment offered by the gentlemen from North 
Carolina and from California.
    Congress simply has to accept the fact that federal 
spending has to be cut. By restraining FAA R&D funding at the 
fiscal year 2008 level, this bill does not choke off research 
but it does force FAA to be more selective in the types of 
research it conducts. And to repeat what I said a minute ago, 
our legislation gives FAA the latitude to invest its research 
funding in programs it deems to have priority.
    I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentlelady ask 
recognition?
    Ms. Edwards. At the conclusion, if other Members haven't 
spoken, I would ask for a record----
    Chairman Hall. Let me give them a chance.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others who want to be heard?
    Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
    Chairman Hall. Mel, are you first?
    Mr. Brooks. Mo.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Brooks.
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. Mel is the movie producer.
    Chairman Hall. It is Mo.
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. I am a freshman. You all can tell. I 
am one of many freshman who came here looking at the budget 
situation that our nation faces, and quite frankly, we were 
provoked into running, not that we desired it but felt that we 
had to in order to save our nation from fiscal peril.
    During the first six years of the Bush Administration, we 
averaged $300 billion a year in budget deficits. Those are bad. 
Since the change in the elections of November of 2006, over the 
four succeeding years, those budget deficits have multiplied by 
a factor of four to an average of $1.2 trillion a year. It is 
one year to have bad budget deficits. It is another thing to 
have deficits that threaten the very survival of our Federal 
Government, and that is what these do. $1.2 trillion-a-year 
deficits are unsustainable, absolutely unsustainable. They risk 
a federal bankruptcy, they risk a federal insolvency. If the 
Federal Government goes bankrupt, and that is the path that it 
is headed on, then there will not be money to fund any of the 
programs that these amendments purport to assist. Quite 
frankly, given that kind of economic environment, I would 
submit that it is irresponsible for us as a government to 
continue to spend money that we don't have no matter how much 
we would like to spend it.
    The responsible thing to do I would submit would be to 
suggest cuts elsewhere in the funding so that we have a 
comparison point between item A and item B, and we can decide 
which is the higher priority. But that does not seem to be the 
path promoted by any of these amendments that have been 
supported so far or thrust upon us, and as such faced with a 
Federal Government bankruptcy with the hardship that would 
result from a Federal Government bankruptcy, faced with the 
fact that there is a risk that all of the programs that go 
through Science, Space, and Technology would get zero money if 
there is a Federal Government insolvency and bankruptcy. I 
would submit that the very responsible thing to do, no matter 
how much we don't like it, is to maintain the Chairman's 
position to not increase this spending beyond our means and to 
vote against each and every one of these amendments that 
propose no alternative sources for funding and cut no place 
else in the budget.
    So I want the record to reflect why I so strongly oppose 
each one of these fiscally irresponsible endeavors to amend 
this budget to spend money that we don't have. And as a caveat, 
I would add one other thing. In the month of February, the 
deficit was $223 billion. That is for one month. Now, keep in 
mind that the White House's projection for this fiscal year is 
$1.65 trillion deficit. Well, if that February number turns out 
to be a trend rather than an aberration, then we are looking at 
a budget deficit, if it is a trend, of $2.5 trillion in this 
one year alone.
    Folks, we have to start understanding that no matter how 
much we want to spend other people's money, no matter how much 
we may want to risk bankrupting our Federal Government, we 
can't do it if we are going to save America as a great nation.
    And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my 
time.
    Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman from----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the lady from 
California?
    Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Hall. I recognize you for five minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a 
couple of brief comments, and I have no doubt that the 
gentleman is sincere, but I think it is important to note that 
the United States is not bankrupt and is not going bankrupt. We 
have a fiscal challenge. When President Clinton left office, as 
you know, we were running a surplus. Right after that we 
borrowed about $4 trillion for two wars and encountered a 
recession that has severely impacted our revenues.
    No one disagrees that there is a need to get spending under 
control as well as improve the revenue picture. But I just 
would note that there are areas where if you cut, you actually 
end up paying more. And when it comes to research and 
prevention of disaster, that is one of those things where it is 
penny-wise and pound-foolish. And I think this is one of those 
instance. I hope that the gentleman will be voting for the 
resolution to end the war later today, if he is as concerned 
about the deficit as he says that he is, and I would yield the 
balance of my time to Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I want to concede that 
the comments that we just heard were sincere, but it certainly 
shows amnesia and it is hard to imagine it is not willful 
amnesia.
    Just a decade ago, Congress was debating what to do with 
the surplus. We paid off $400 billion of the national debt. 
Alan Greenspan, then the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 
was worried that we would pay off the national debt too quickly 
and would be unsettling for the economy. That was a Republican 
President and a Republican Congress that addressed that 
important problem, what to do with the surplus, how to avoid 
paying off the national debt too quickly, and I must compliment 
the Republicans, you did a spectacular job of solving that 
problem. We really do not have a problem of paying off the 
national debt too quickly now.
    But we are seeing what the consequences of that are. In 
order to give tax cuts to people who have their own jets, their 
own private jets, we are making commercial aviation, which the 
middle class has to rely upon, much more dangerous. We are 
cutting funding for icing. We are cutting funding for research 
into human errors. We are cutting funding for research into on-
board fires, all of which we know have cost hundreds of 
people's, thousands of people's lives over the years, and it is 
remarkably shortsighted because we know every time there is a 
crash, we spend tens of millions of dollars in search and 
recovery, in investigations into what caused the crash and on 
and on.
    And I am sure that just as we now have willful amnesia 
about why we have a deficit, when those crashes occur in the 
future because of icing or because of an on-board fire or 
because of human error, we will again hear willful amnesia that 
these cuts that could have avoided it, they will not be 
remembered at all. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Who else seeks 
recognition? Mr. Cravaack from Minnesota, I recognize you for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. And Mr. Cravaack, I would like to--would you 
yield for a question?
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir, I would.
    Chairman Hall. Do you believe Mr. Miller was talking about 
the surplus that Obama did away with?
    Mr. Cravaack. Sir, all I can tell you is the last four 
years we have had $3 trillion in deficit----
    Chairman Hall. The deficit of the next two or three 
generations of our children?
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir. That is why I am here.
    Chairman Hall. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir. I am hearing from the other side of 
the aisle here, and I got to be honest with you, I am wondering 
what country you are in because the only reason I am here is 
because of the debt that is being transferred to our children 
and our grandchildren. I was very happy being a stay-at-home 
dad, and all the amount of debt that is being transferred on 
our kids is the only reason why I decided to stand up and 
basically run for Congress.
    So we are reaching quickly 100 percent GDP. All we need to 
do is take a look at what has happened in countries such as 
Iceland, Spain, now losing Moody's rating. These are things 
that we need to take a look at because the course is set before 
us. Now, if you want to continue going on this course and going 
toward this cliff, that is up to you. But I am here to change 
that course and bring this carrier back around again.
    Also, as a background, I am a Navy pilot and I am also a 
commercial airline pilot with thousands of hours in different 
types of aircraft. And I can tell you that a lot of the 
accidents we hear about here today were definitely combination 
errors. There is never one single thing that creates an 
aircraft accident. It is a combination of things. We learned a 
lot. I was actually an instructor at Northwest Airlines.
    In Iceland, one of the decision-making factors in taking a 
look at this fire was making sure that the pilots knew that 
they needed to get to an airport quickly. This is all part of a 
decision-making factor. TWA, I was actually a flight engineer 
on a 747. There are some things that you just can't plan for, 
and aviation is an unusual industry. When you are flying 
aircraft, you cannot plan for everything.
    As a Navy pilot, one of the most orchestrated places you 
will ever see is the flight deck of a carrier. But you know 
what? Sometimes things go wrong, and people get killed. That is 
just the nature of the beast.
    Now, no matter how much money you dump on this, you are not 
going to be able to solve those problems, and you have got to 
remember, too, it is also incumbent upon the airlines 
themselves to research their own methods, make sure that their 
methods are up to par, in how their cockpit coordination goes, 
their CRM.
    So dumping money on a problem isn't solving the problem. So 
we need to take a look in making sure that we have the funding 
that is available. I believe that the funding appropriated in 
this bill is enough, and I think that the pilots also realize 
that it is incumbent upon them, the airlines, it is incumbent 
upon them, to make sure that their procedures are in place to 
learn from these very valuable lessons.
    In the Navy we had, it is called NATOPS, Naval Aviation 
Training Operation Procedure Manual, and parts of that manual 
were written in red. And the reason why they were written in 
red is because they were written in blood because something 
that wasn't planned for, happened. And that is unfortunately 
the nature of the beast, and that is the nature of aviation.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir, I would yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you a freshman this year I take it?
    Mr. Cravaack. Can't you tell?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, first, let me ask you, are you fully 
aware that if these folks were really concerned about what they 
are complaining about, if there was a lack of money, that they 
could shift money from somewhere else in this bill and in the 
budget to handle that specific objection? Are you aware of 
that?
    Mr. Cravaack. No, sir, I am not, but thank you for that 
information.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So you will understand that when someone 
there is saying how horrible this is, if they are willing to 
prioritize on something else that they consider less important, 
they can shift that over.
    Are you aware that when the gentleman was talking about the 
balanced budget that Bill Clinton gave us that it was a 
Republican Congress that was in place at that time?
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir. I am aware of that.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you aware that the Democrats took over 
the House of Representatives two years into the last term of 
the Bush Administration, and at that time the budget deficit 
was I think $120 billion and that now has been turned into $1.5 
trillion with a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress?
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir, I am, but thank you for emphasizing 
it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. I just thought you might not 
know that as a freshman, but I am glad to have this opportunity 
to talk to you about it.
    Mr. Cravaack. Thank you very much, and I will yield back my 
time. And again, dumping money on a problem doesn't necessarily 
solve the problem. And I do not think that increased funding in 
this area is what is needed at this time and that we need to 
make sure that the airlines also own this and they update their 
procedures as well.
    So I speak against the amendment. Thank you, sir. I yield 
back my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back his time. Were 
there others who wish to be heard? Mr. Palazzo, I believe you 
were asking to be recognized. I recognize you for five minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Sir, I just have an amendment at the desk at 
the proper time but not to be recognized. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. Okay.
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who----
    Mr. Harris. This way. The freshman side.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. If I could just be recognized for 30 seconds.
    Chairman Hall. I recognize you for five minutes----
    Mr. Harris. I will only take 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. --no matter what state you are from.
    Mr. Harris. Maryland, the wonderful Eastern Shore of 
Maryland. As a physician, you know, amnesia requires that a 
fact has to be present first if you are going to forget it. The 
fact of the matter is, we haven't had a unified budget surplus 
in decades. The myth that the budget was balanced under the 
Clinton Administration is a myth. We borrowed billions of 
dollars from Social Security, robbing all the folks in that 
room who are not at retirement age from the possibility of 
having a fiscally sound Social Security system. It is a myth. 
It is something that has been perpetuated in Washington for 
decades. We have not had a balanced budget. It hasn't been 
balanced for decades, and Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts 
to try to bring this budget into balance.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the 
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed say 
no. In the Chair's opinion, the no's have it. The no's have it.
    Ms. Edwards. And now, Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask for 
that recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. Tonko votes aye. Sorry. I wrote aye, I just said no. 
Excuse me.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Lujan is recognized. How is Mr. Lujan 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan is not recorded.
    Mr. Lujan. I would like to record as aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, not recorded.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others? Anyone else? Okay. The 
clerk--are you ready to report the vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye and 17 Members 
vote no.



    Chairman Hall. All right. The no's are 17, the ayes are 13. 
The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there other amendments to the amendment?
    Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 003, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. 
Palazzo of Mississippi.
    Chairman Hall. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does 
not in any way alter the intention of this section or the bill 
which is to recognize the importance of these research and 
development provisions. What it does is prevent the CBO from 
counting these programs as being funded both in this bill and 
in the larger FAA bill. We have run this by CBO and have been 
told that this minor change should address this double 
accounting problem.
    I urge its adoption, and with that I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back his time. Are 
there others who wish to be recognized? All right. If no other 
one wants to be recognized, a vote occurs on the amendment. All 
in favor say aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it.
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The amendment is agreed to. Are there other 
amendments to the amendment?
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from Alabama.
    Mr. Broun. Georgia.
    Chairman Hall. Georgia. Close. For the mistake I made, I 
will grant you 10 minutes.
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, I don't need 10 minutes. Can I 
take a rain check and get that later on? Mr. Chairman, I have 
an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 345, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. Broun 
of Georgia.
    Chairman Hall. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman will be recognized for as much time as he 
needs to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is 
intended to ensure that we are not increasing the costs of the 
bill above fiscal year 2008 levels. This amendment would ensure 
that the funding for the specified sections comes out of the 
funds authorized for research in the bill.
    Additionally, my amendment would require that the 
administrator perform the assessments in Sections 1012 and 1013 
in house rather than requiring a contract with an outside 
group. This would reduce the cost of the assessment and would 
allow more funds to be devoted to research and development in 
other areas. It is a very simple amendment. Mr. Chairman, I 
thank the Chairman and urge my colleagues to support this very 
simple amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Is there further 
discussion on the amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. I have.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson for as much 
time as she requires.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Unfortunately, I oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia.
    This amendment would eliminate the good government conduct 
of having independent reviews, in this case, of two FAA 
programs, energy and environment-related research programs and 
aviation safety-related research programs and direct the agency 
to take on that function.
    While federal agencies routinely carry out their own 
internal problematic reviews, that function cannot replace the 
need of external, independent assessments by individuals who 
are not involved in the management or decision making on the 
agency's programs being reviewed.
    We have had lots of problems in that area, and we hope we 
have straightened out a lot of them. The advice of experts 
serving an independent, nongovernmental body provides a 
critical checks and balance on the agency programs. As stewards 
of the taxpayers' dollars, we need to ensure our direction on 
agency program benefits from the external, independent 
analysis. I cannot see how this amendment serves the best 
interest of the important FAA research on energy and 
environment programs and aviation safety.
    So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
          Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Amendment offered by the 
        gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun.

          This amendment would eliminate the ``good 
        government'' conduct of having independent reviews, in this 
        case, of two FAA programs--energy and environment-related 
        research programs and aviation safety-related research 
        programs--and direct the agency to take on that function.

          While Federal agencies routinely carry out their own 
        internal programmatic reviews, that function cannot replace the 
        need for external, independent assessments by individuals who 
        are not involved in the management of or decision making on the 
        agency programs being reviewed.

          The advice of experts serving an independent, non-
        governmental body provides a critical check-and-balance on 
        agency programs.

          As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we need to ensure 
        our direction on agency programs benefits from in external, 
        independent analysis.

          I can't see how this Amendment serves the best 
        interests of important FAA research on energy and environmental 
        programs and aviation safety.

          I urge my colleagues to vote NO on this Amendment.

    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady gives back her time. Anyone 
want to be heard?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. To your right. Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. Oh, Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, I recognize you 
for as much time as you need as long as you don't need over 
five minutes. No, we owe you some time because you didn't use 
your time last time.
    Mr. Miller. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. It won't take----
    Chairman Hall. Go ahead.
    Mr. Miller. --that long. I oppose this amendment also. I 
have dealt with the FAA for four years as Chairman of the 
Oversight Subcommittee of this Committee, and the FAA is very 
much given to that tendency of government officials we now know 
around the world, including Japan, to say everything is fine. 
Don't worry, we have got everything under control. My own view 
and I think the view of the American people is we would rather 
you let us know if something is wrong or let us know the truth 
and we will decide ourselves whether or not we should worry, 
but don't just tell us not to worry and keep from us the facts.
    And they also don't like anybody looking over their 
shoulder. It is very important that we have another set of eyes 
on FAA and that we not just count on them.
    So I very much support having this research done 
independently, this assessment done independently, and oppose 
the amendment. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Are there others 
who want to speak for or against the amendment? I reserve three 
minutes on this amendment.
    I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think his 
amendment is very helpful in ensuring that the new programs 
created by the bill be funded as part of research and 
development of the FAA. Additionally, I am pleased that the 
gentleman is allowing FAA to do these assessments in-house as a 
way to conserve limited resources, and I am hopeful that this 
is going to help the Administrator to be able to stretch the 
funds even further. And I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment. If there is no further discussion on the amendment, 
the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed 
say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller of North Carolina again.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Miller of North Carolina, you have an 
amendment, sir?
    Mr. Miller. I do.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 003, amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 970 offered by Mr. Miller 
of North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. All right. I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman on his amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. This amendment is also aimed at 
addressing safety issues within the aviation system, and again, 
the FAA, like government officials around the world, and now we 
know including Japan, are very much inclined to say don't 
worry, we have got everything under control when what I think 
all of us would prefer is that they just tell us the truth and 
let us decide whether to worry or not.
    The FAA did not much like NASA doing the survey or pilots 
and others involved in aviation, but the pilots were quite 
eager to tell what they were seeing because they were 
concerned. The GAO looked at the survey and decided that the 
information, because of a variety of reasons, most notably that 
there were such extraordinary efforts to protect anonymity that 
it made the information somewhat useless, that the initial 
survey did not provide usable data but that a survey made a lot 
of sense. And the conduct of the survey showed that a survey 
could be conducted successfully. It would be very useful in 
identifying problems in aviation, safety problems in aviation. 
One is to identify precursor events. That is not hard to figure 
out. Precursor event for in-air collisions are near-misses. If 
you have a whole lot of near-misses, you should worry that one 
time they're not going to miss.
    This amendment will make it clear, will ask them to look at 
whether a survey can be used and will be useful in assessing 
aviation safety. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Brad Miller
    Mr Chairman, like my other amendment, this amendment is aimed at 
addressing safety issues within the aviation system. My amendment would 
ensure that any analysis of FAA R&D programs (whether carried it out by 
NRC or FFAA) to consider whether a survey of participants across the 
air transportation system is an appropriate way to study safety risks 
within the air transportation system.
    In 1997, The National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service 
(NAOMS) project was conceived in order to develop a survey methodology 
that would identify accident precursors and trends within the aviation 
system. This survey was to cover everyone within the aviation system 
from pilots, to ground control to baggage handlers. The thought was 
that if you actually asked people what they were seeing, what near 
misses they had discovered you might be able to identify risks in the 
system more quickly and accurately than if you only collected data on 
failures or near-failures within the system.
    Limitations in the survey methodology and data entry ultimately led 
to the end of the NAOMS project, and data collected from the survey was 
never analyzed.
    With the demise of the NAOMS project, it appears that FAA and NASA 
have given up on the idea of using a survey to identify risks within 
the aviation system.
    But I believe strongly in the utility of a survey, something that 
actually asks people what they are seeing rather than relying on 
``incidents'' to occur. Both the GAO and NAS found that as a research 
and development tool, NAOMS was largely successful, that we can still 
use the lessons learned from this project as a step to develop and 
implement a survey that will work. The taxpayer money that went into 
the NAOMS project doesn't have to be wasted.
    The survey was not ready for prime time, and there are still 
challenges to be overcome in both the methodology and making sure that 
survey data could be integrated with other safe-data collection 
systems, specifically the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and 
Sharing System (ASIAS).
    I believe that the development of a workable survey should be part 
of the FAA's Aviation Safety Related Research Programs. The purpose of 
my amendment is to draw attention to this aspect of aviation safety 
research, and to prompt the FAA to include surveys as part of safety 
programs in the future.

    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else 
want to be heard? You may not believe it, but I support the 
gentleman's amendment. It adds a provision that directs FAA to 
assess the usefulness of surveys used to measure safety trends 
in the aviation industry itself. So Mr. Miller's interest in 
surveys conducted both by FAA and NASA is well-founded given 
the Committee's history on this issue.
    Mr. Cravaack wishes to be recognized. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Cravaack. Yes, sir. I speak in favor of the amendment 
as well. I think it is an excellent opportunity for pilots and 
those that are on the ground floor to be able to provide input. 
It is valuable input as long as the anonymity of the 
participant of the survey is protected. I think it is an 
excellent way to provide information and to be able to prevent 
any future accidents or incidents in the future.
    So I speak in favor of the amendment.
    Chairman Hall. And I thank you.
    Mr. Cravaack. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Cravaack is a wonderful Member of this 
Committee with his background and his expertise at this level 
is very, very valuable to this Committee and to this Congress. 
I know Mr. Miller appreciates his support.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the 
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, those 
opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment is accepted.
    Are there any other amendments? If there are no further 
amendments, the question is on agreeing to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as amended. All those in favor will say 
aye, all those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the 
Chair, the ayes have it.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the bill, H.R. 970 
as amended. All those in favor will say aye, all those opposed 
say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Ms. Johnson. I would like to ask for a record vote on it.
    Chairman Hall. Record vote is requested. Is there 
objection? The Chair hears none. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Broun?
    Mr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes aye.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes aye.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Benishek?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes no.
    Chairman Hall. The clerk will report the vote. Is there 
anyone else who wishes to vote, who wants to be recognized. Mr. 
Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu is not recorded. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Is there anyone else. Mr. Akin would like to 
be recorded as yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Akin. Anyone else? The clerk 
will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 17 Members vote aye and 13 Members 
vote no.



    Chairman Hall. The amendment is agreed to, and the bill as 
amended is agreed to.
    Before I recognize Mr. Palazzo to offer a motion, I want to 
recognize Mr. Wu who sent me a Happy Chinese New Year's Day 
from the Wu family, and he also has a picture of his darling 
daughter and his fine-looking son on it. And he states that the 
Chinese year is 1709, and if that is true, I am 2,785 years 
old.
    I thank you, Mr. Wu, for this beautiful card. Now, the 
Chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo to offer a motion.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the 
Committee favorably report H.R. 970 as amended to the House 
with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I 
move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report 
and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that 
the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before 
the House for consideration.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The question now is on the motion 
to report the bill. Those in favor say aye, no opposed, those 
opposed say no. The ayes have it. The resolution is favorably 
reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid 
upon the table. Members may have two subsequent calendar days 
in which to submit supplemental, minority or additional views 
on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee 
authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be 
necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 970, the Federal 
Aviation Research Development Reauthorization Act of 2011 as 
amended. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    This concludes our Full Committee markup. The Committee is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 970, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster






                     Section-by-Section Analysis of
              H.R. 970, the Federal Aviation Research and
                Development Reauthorization Act of 2011

Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents

    ``Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 
2011''.

Sec. 2. Amendments to Title 49, United States Code

    Stipulates that all references to amending or repealing a 
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to title 49, 
United States Code.

Sec. 3. Definitions

    Defines terms used in the bill.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization of Appropriations

    Amends existing law and authorizes $165,020,000 for FY2011; and 
$146,827,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. The 
section also authorizes all programs included in the National Aviation 
Research Plan.

Sec. 102. Unmanned Aircraft Systems

    Requires FAA to conduct research on technologies and methods to 
assess the risk of, and prevent the failure of, products, parts and 
processes used in any unmanned aircraft systems that operates in the 
national airspace system. Also requires human factors research on 
operating unmanned aircraft systems, and development of simulation 
models that realistically emulate the national airspace system for 
research on operating a UAS with general aviation and commercial 
aircraft.

Sec. 103. Research Program on Runways

    Authorizes the FAA to maintain a program of research and technology 
related to improved runway surfaces and engineered material restraining 
systems for runways at both general aviation airports and airports with 
commercial air carriers.

Sec. 104. Research on Design for Certification

    Requires the FAA to conduct research on methods to improve the 
timeliness of certification for new national airspace system 
technologies. Within 6 months following the date of enactment, requires 
the development of a research plan that contains the research 
objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a 5-year budgetary profile. 
Directs the FAA to engage the National Research Council for an 
independent review of the plan, and to provide their results to the 
House and Senate committees of jurisdiction.

Sec. 105. Airport Cooperative Research Program

    Amends existing law to extend the program.

Sec. 106. Centers of Excellence

    Amends existing law, stating that the U.S. Government's share of 
establishing and operating a center and associated research activities 
shall not exceed 50 percent and further provides that only if the 
Administrator determines that without additional funds the center would 
be unable to carry out the authorized activities such share may be 
increased to a maximum of 75 percent. Requires an annual report to 
Congress that lists the research projects carried out by each Center of 
Excellence, amounts and sources of funding, and the institutions 
participating in each project.

Sec. 107. Interagency Research on Aviation and the Environment

    Permits the FAA, in coordination with NASA, to continue in its 
discretion a research program to assess the effect of aviation on the 
environment, and if warranted, to evaluate approaches to mitigate it. 
Requires a research plan and stipulates that the plan include an 
inventory of current interagency research being conducted in this area, 
future research objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a five year 
budget profile. The plan is to be delivered to Congress within 1 year 
after enactment.

Sec. 108. Aviation Fuel Research and Development Program

    Requires the FAA, in conjunction with NASA, to continue research 
and development activities to qualify an unleaded aviation fuel for 
piston engine aircraft, and to safely transition this technology. Not 
later than 120 days following enactment, FAA is to develop a research 
plan including objectives, timetable, and recommended policies and 
guidelines needed to facilitate a transition to unleaded fuel. Directs 
the FAA to work with aviation consumers, fuel producers, and industry. 
Requires FAA to report to Congress within 270 days of enactment on the 
plan and recommended policies and guidelines.

Sec. 109. Research Program on Alternative Jet Fuel Technology for Civil 
                    Aircraft

    Requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct research 
related to developing and certifying jet fuel from alternative sources 
(such as coal, natural gas, biomass, ethanol, butanol, and hydrogen) 
through grants or other arrangements, including reimbursable agreements 
with other government agencies. Directs the Secretary to provide for 
participation by educational and research institutions.

Sec. 110. Review of FAA's Energy- and Environment-Related Research 
                    Programs

    Requires the Administrator to engage the National Research Council 
to conduct a review of the FAA's energy- and environment-related 
research programs, and to provide the Congress with a report on the 
review within 18 months of enactment.

Sec. 111. Review of FAA's Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs

    Same as Sec. 110, but directing the National Research Council to 
review all FAA aviation-safety related research programs. The NRC's 
report is due within 14 months of enactment.



                                   
