{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2018-04-26-pt1-PgH3643-2", "2018-04-26", 115, 2, null, null, "FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H3643", "H3688", "[{\"name\": \"Bill Shuster\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter A. DeFazio\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rodney Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Daniel Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jason Lewis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Pramila Jayapal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Estes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Raja Krishnamoorthi\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charlie Crist\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Derek Kilmer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Darren Soto\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Lewis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter J. Roskam\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Denham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Costa\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Susan A. Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Kevin Cramer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"David N. Cicilline\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Sanford\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James R. Langevin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jim Banks\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom O'Halleran\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jimmy Panetta\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andy Biggs\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Paul Mitchell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Clay Higgins\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Cohen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael C. Burgess\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ed Perlmutter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jared Polis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dana Rohrabacher\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve King\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Daniel T. Kildee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lloyd Doggett\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles J. \\\"Chuck\\\" Fleischmann\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gwen Moore\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Leonard Lance\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas R. Suozzi\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Donald S. Beyer, Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Adrian Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rick Larsen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Grace F. Napolitano\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Henry Cuellar\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"A. Donald McEachin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Barbara Comstock\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Stephen F. Lynch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Grace Meng\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lee M. Zeldin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brenda L. Lawrence\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Andre Carson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Frederica S. Wilson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"839\"}]", "164 Cong. Rec. H3643", "Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]\n[House]\n[Pages H3643-H3688]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018\n\n The Committee resumed its sitting.\n\n Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania\n\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer\namendments en bloc.\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). The Clerk will designate the\namendments en bloc.\n Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,\n7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,\n27, 28, 29, and 30 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered\nby Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:\n\n Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia\n\n Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 1__. USE OF FUNDS FROM PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES TO\n PREVENT POWER OUTAGES.\n\n Section 40117(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended by adding at the end the following:\n ``(H) An on-airport project to purchase and install\n generators to prevent power outages in passenger areas of the\n airport, to separate an airport's redundant power supply and\n its main power supply, or for any other on-airport project to\n prevent power outages or damage to the airport's power\n supply.''.\n\n Page 32, after line 9, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 1__. USE OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS TO PREVENT POWER\n OUTAGES.\n\n Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended by adding at the end the following:\n ``(P) an on-airport project to purchase and install\n generators to prevent power outages in the passenger areas of\n the airport, separate an airport's redundant power supply and\n its main power supply, or prevent power outages in the\n airport or damage to the airport's power supply.''.\n\n Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida\n\n Page 12, line 23, insert ``a sink or sanitizing\n equipment,'' after ``surface,''.\n\n Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman of New Jersey\n\n Page 13, line 19, strike ``building.'' and insert\n ``building and will maintain a baby\n\n[[Page H3644]]\n\n changing table in 1 men's and 1 women's restroom in each\n passenger terminal building of the airport.''.\n\n Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington\n\n Page 25, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert the\n following:\n (2) Exemption.--Section 47124(b)(3)(D) of title 49, United\n States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:\n ``Airports with air service under part 121 of title 14, Code\n of Federal Regulations, and more than 25,000 passenger\n enplanements in calendar year 2014 shall be exempt from any\n cost-share requirement under this subparagraph.''.\n\n Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas\n\n Page 32, after line 9, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 137. GENERAL WRITTEN ASSURANCES.\n\n Section 47107(a)(17) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended by striking ``each contract'' and inserting ``if any\n phase of such project has received funds under this\n subchapter, each contract''.\n\n Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois\n\n Page 37, line 1, insert ``and economic'' after ``health''.\n Page 38, line 5, strike ``and'' at the end.\n Page 38, line 12, strike the period at the end and insert\n ``; and''.\n Page 38, after line 12, insert the following:\n (5) consider the economic harm or benefits to businesses\n located party or wholly underneath flight paths most\n frequently used by aircraft flying at an altitude lower than\n 10,000 feet, including during takeoff or landing.\n\n Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jayapal of Washington\n\n Page 37, line 23, strike ``or'' at the end.\n Page 37, after line 23, insert the following (and\n redesignate the subsequent subparagraph accordingly):\n (H) Seattle; or\n\n Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois\n\n At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CONTROL TOWERS.\n\n Section 47116(d) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended adding at the end the following:\n ``(3) Control tower construction.--Notwithstanding any\n provision of section 47124(b)(4)(A), the Secretary may\n provide grants under this section to an airport sponsor for\n the construction or improvement of a nonapproach control\n tower, as defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition\n and installation of air traffic control, communications, and\n related equipment to be used in that tower. Such grants shall\n be subject to the distribution requirements of subsection (b)\n and the eligibility requirements of section\n 47124(b)(4)(B).''.\n\n Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska\n\n At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. SMALL AIRPORT REGULATION RELIEF.\n\n Section 47114(c)(1) is amended by striking subparagraph (F)\n and inserting the following:\n ``(F) Special rule for fiscal years 2018 through 2020.--\n Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and subject to subparagraph\n (G), the Secretary shall apportion to a sponsor of an airport\n under that subparagraph for each of fiscal years 2018 through\n 2020 an amount based on the number of passenger boardings at\n the airport during calendar year 2012 if the airport--\n ``(i) had 10,000 or more passenger boardings during\n calendar year 2012;\n ``(ii) had fewer than 10,000 passenger boardings during the\n calendar year used to calculate the apportionment for fiscal\n year 2018, 2019, or 2020, as applicable, under subparagraph\n (A); and\n ``(iii) had scheduled air service at any point in the\n calendar year used to calculate the apportionment.''.\n\n Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California\n\n Page 42, line 17, insert the following:\n\n (k) Authorization for the Transfer of Funds From Department\n of Defense.--\n (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration may accept funds from the Secretary of Defense\n to increase the authorized funding for this section by the\n amount of such transfer only to carry out projects designed\n for environmental mitigation at a site previously, but not\n currently, managed by the Department of Defense.\n (2) Additional grantees.--If additional funds are made\n available by the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (1),\n the Administrator may increase the number of grantees under\n subsection (a).\n\n Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Ted Lieu of California\n\n Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. LEAD EMISSIONS.\n\n (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall enter\n into appropriate arrangements with the National Academies of\n Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National\n Research Council will conduct a study and develop a report on\n aviation gasoline.\n (b) Contents.--The study shall include an assessment of--\n (1) existing non-leaded fuel alternatives to the aviation\n gasoline used by piston-powered general aviation aircraft;\n (2) ambient Pb concentrations at and around airports where\n piston-powered general aviation aircraft are used; and\n (3) mitigation measures to reduce ambient Pb\n concentrations, including increasing the size of run-up\n areas, relocating run-up areas, imposing restrictions on\n aircraft using aviation gasoline, and increasing the use of\n motor gasoline in piston-powered general aviation aircraft.\n (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the\n date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to\n Congress the report developed by the National Research\n Council pursuant to this section.\n\n Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Meng of New York\n\n Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:\n\n SEC. ___. AIRCRAFT NOISE, EMISSION, AND FUEL BURN REDUCTION\n PROGRAM.\n\n (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may carry\n out an aircraft noise, emission, and fuel burn reduction\n research and development program.\n (b) Elements.--In carrying out the program under subsection\n (a), the Secretary may--\n (1) support efforts to accelerate the development of new\n aircraft, engine technologies, and jet fuels;\n (2) pursue lighter and more efficient turbine engine\n components, advanced aircraft wing designs, fuselage\n structures for innovative aircraft architectures, and smart\n aircraft and engine control systems; and\n (3) partner with private industry to accomplish the goals\n of the program.\n\n Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Bass of California\n\n At the end of title I, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 1__. TERMINAL SEQUENCING AND SPACING.\n\n Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the\n status of Terminal Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS)\n implementation across all completed NextGen Metroplexes with\n specific information provided by airline regarding the\n adoption and equipping of aircraft and the training of pilots\n in its use.\n\n Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Speier of California\n\n At the end of title I of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. NOISE AND HEALTH IMPACT TRAINING.\n\n (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States\n shall conduct a study on--\n (1) while maintaining safety as the top priority, whether\n air traffic controllers and airspace designers are trained on\n noise and health impact mitigation in addition to efficiency;\n and\n (2) the prevalence of vectoring flights due to over-crowded\n departure and arrival paths and alternatives to this\n practice.\n (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to\n Congress a report on the results of the study.\n\n Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. McSally of Arizona\n\n Page 51, after line 24, insert the following:\n\n (x) Airport owners and operators.\n\n Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kildee of Michigan\n\n At the end of subtitle A of title II, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 2__. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FIREFIGHTING FOAMS.\n\n Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the FAA, using the latest version\n of National Fire Protection Association 403, ``Standard for\n Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports'', and\n in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental\n Protection Agency, aircraft manufacturers and airports, shall\n not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet the\n performance standards referenced in chapter 6 of AC No: 150/\n 5210-6D and acceptable under 139.319(l) of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations.\n\n Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Estes of Kansas\n\n Page 72, line 20, strike ``and''.\n Page 72, after line 20, insert the following:\n (H) aircraft manufacturers; and\n Page 72, line 21, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.\n Page 73, after line 7, insert the following:\n (4) ensuring adequate and timely provision of Flight\n Standards activities and responses necessary for type\n certification, operational evaluation, and entry into service\n of newly manufactured aircraft;\n Page 73, line 8, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.\n Page 73, line 10, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.\n Page 73, lines 13 through 14, strike ``the date of\n enactment of this Act'' and insert ``the date of the\n establishment of the Task Force''.\n Page 73, lines 23 through 24, strike ``action or cost-\n effective legislative action'' and insert ``, policy, or\n cost-effective legislative action to improve the efficiency\n of agency activities''.\n\n Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida\n\n Page 104, line 10, insert ``and pregnant women'' after\n ``children''.\n\n[[Page H3645]]\n\n Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts\n\n Page 109, after line 15, insert the following:\n (a) Workforce Readiness.--The Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall coordinate with government,\n educational institutions, labor organizations representing\n aviation maintenance workers, and businesses to develop\n guidance or model curricula for aviation maintenance\n technician schools certificated under part 147 of title 14 of\n the Code of Federal Regulations to ensure workforce readiness\n for industry needs, including curricula related to training\n in avionics, troubleshooting, and other areas of industry\n needs.\n (1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of\n this Act, the Administrator shall publish the guidance or\n model curricula.\n (2) The Administrator shall publish updates to the guidance\n or model curricula at least once every 2 years from the date\n of initial publication.\n Page 109, line 16, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.\n Page 109, line 19, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.\n Page 110, line 18, strike ``and''.\n Page 110, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.\n Page 110, after line 22, insert the following:\n (7) develop recommendations for addressing the needs for\n government funding, private investment, equipment for\n training purposes, and other resources necessary to\n strengthen existing training programs or develop new training\n programs to support workforce growth in the aviation\n industry.\n Page 110, line 23, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.\n Page 111, line 4, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.\n\n Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Long of Missouri\n\n At the end of subtitle A of title III, insert the\n following:\n\n SEC. 3__. EXIT ROWS.\n\n (a) Review.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall conduct a review of current safety\n procedures regarding unoccupied exit rows on a covered\n aircraft in passenger air transportation during all stages of\n flight.\n (b) Consultation.--In carrying out the review, the\n Administrator shall consult with air carriers, aviation\n manufacturers, and labor stakeholders.\n (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of\n the review.\n (d) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term\n ``covered aircraft'' means an aircraft operating under part\n 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.\n\n Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Crist of Florida\n\n Page 112, after line 12, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 319. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON FAA ENFORCEMENT\n POLICY.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall\n complete a study, and report to the Committee on\n Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of\n Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and\n Transportation of the United States Senate on the results\n thereof, on the effectiveness of Order 8000.373, Federal\n Aviation Administration Compliance Philosophy, announced on\n June 26, 2015. Such study shall include information about--\n (1) whether reports of safety incidents increased following\n the order;\n (2) whether reduced enforcement penalties increased the\n overall number of safety incidents that occurred; and\n (3) whether FAA enforcement staff registered complaints\n about reduced enforcement reducing compliance with safety\n regulations.\n\n Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Sanford of South Carolina\n\n At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n SEC. 3__ SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.\n\n (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law\n relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems\n into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies,\n including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or\n regulation regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being\n developed as a model aircraft; except for--\n (1) rules regarding the registration of certain model\n aircraft pursuant to section 44103; and\n (2) rules regarding unmanned aircraft that by design\n provide advanced flight capabilities enabling active,\n sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond\n the visual line of sight of the operator, if--\n (A) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or\n recreational use;\n (B) the model aircraft operator is a current member of a\n community-based organization and whose aircraft is operated\n in accordance with the organization's safety rules;\n (C) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds\n unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,\n inspection, flight test, and operational safety program\n administered by a community-based organization;\n (D) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not\n interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;\n (E) the aircraft is not operated over or within the\n property of a fixed site facility that operates amusement\n rides available for use by the general public or the property\n extending 500 lateral feet beyond the perimeter of such\n facility unless the operation is authorized by the owner of\n the amusement facility; and\n (F) when flown within 3 miles of an airport, the operator\n of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport\n air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is\n located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation\n (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location\n within 3 miles of an airport should establish a mutually\n agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and\n the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic\n facility is located at the airport)).\n (b) Automated Instant Authorization.--When the FAA has\n established a fully operational and functional automated\n instant authorization and notification system, the model\n aircraft operator shall use this system for access to\n controlled airspace unless flown at a permanent location made\n known to the Administrator (model aircraft operators flying\n from a permanent location should establish a mutually agreed\n upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the\n airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic\n facility is located at the airport)).\n (c) Commercial Operation for Instructional or Educational\n Purposes.--A flight of an unmanned aircraft shall be treated\n as a flight of a model aircraft for purposes of subsection\n (a) (regardless of any compensation, reimbursement, or other\n consideration exchanged or incidental economic benefit gained\n in the course of planning, operating, or supervising the\n flight), if the flight is--\n (1) conducted for instructional or educational purposes;\n and\n (2) operated or supervised by a member of a community-based\n organization recognized pursuant to subsection (e).\n (d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be\n construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to\n pursue enforcement action against persons operating model\n aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace\n system.\n (e) Community-based Organization Defined.--In this section,\n the term ``community-based organization'' means a nationwide\n membership-based associationn entity that--\n (1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal\n Revenue Code of 1986;\n (2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal\n Revenue Code of 1986;\n (3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of\n model aviation;\n (4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for\n all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and\n operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe\n aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system\n and the protection and safety of individuals and property on\n the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety\n rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft\n that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active,\n sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond\n visual line of sight of the operator;\n (5) provides programming and support for any local charter\n organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and\n (6) provides assistance and support in the development and\n operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.\n (f) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.--In\n collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the\n Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180\n days of enactment that identifies the criteria and process\n required for recognition of nationwide community-based\n organizations. This recognition shall be in the form of a\n memorandum of agreement between the FAA and each community-\n based organization and does not require regulatory action to\n implement.\n (g) Effective Date.--Except for rules to implement remote\n identification for unmanned aircraft that by design provide\n advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and\n controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond the visual line\n of sight of the operator and for rules regarding the\n registration of certain model aircraft pursuant to section\n 44103, this section shall become effective when the rule,\n referred to in section 532 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of\n 2018, regarding revisions to part 107 of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations, becomes final.\n\n SEC. 3__. RECREATIONAL UAS.\n\n (a) In General .--Not later than 120 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall issue rules and regulations\n relating to small UAS flown for recreational or educational\n use, and that are not operated within all of the criteria\n outlined in the special rule for model aircraft in section\n 45505 of title 49, United States Code, or the requirements of\n part 107 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.\n (b) Regulatory Authority.--When issuing the rules and\n regulation pursuant to this section, the Administrator\n shall--\n (1) require the completion of an online or electronic\n educational tutorial that is focused on knowledge of the\n primary rules necessary for the safe operation of such UAS\n and whose completion time is of reasonable length and limited\n duration;\n\n[[Page H3646]]\n\n (2) include provisions that enable the operation of such\n UAS by individuals under the age of 16 without a certificated\n pilot;\n (3) require UAS operators within Class B, C, D and E\n airspace to obtain authorization, as the Administrator may\n determine to be necessary within that airspace, but only\n after a near- instantaneous automated airspace authorization\n capability is available for the airspace in which the\n operator wants o operate; and\n (4) include provisions that provide specific operational\n rules for UAS operating in close proximity to airports in\n class G airspace.\n (c) Maintaining Broad Access to UAS Technology.--When\n issuing rules or regulations for the operation of UAS under\n this section, the Administrator shall not--\n (1) require the pilot or operator of the UAS to obtain or\n hold an airman certificate;\n (2) require a practical flight examination, medical\n examination, or the completion of a flight training program;\n (3) limit such UAS operations to pre-designated fixed\n locations or uncontrolled airspace; or\n (4) require airworthiness certification of any UAS operated\n pursuant to this section.\n (d) Collaboration.--The Administrator shall carry out this\n section in collaboration with industry and community-based\n organizations.\n\n Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon\n\n Page 138, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 9\n on page 141 and insert the following (and update the table of\n contents accordingly):\n\n ``Sec. 45509. Exception for limited recreational operations\n of unmanned aircraft\n\n ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e),\n and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States\n Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without\n specific certification or operating authority from the\n Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to\n all of the following limitations:\n ``(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational\n purposes.\n ``(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within\n the programming of a community-based set of safety guidelines\n that conform with published Federal Aviation Administration\n advisory materials.\n ``(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight\n of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-\n located and in direct communication with the operator.\n ``(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not\n interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.\n ``(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within\n the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E\n airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains\n prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before\n operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and\n prohibitions.\n ``(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the\n surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and\n complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.\n ``(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and\n safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by\n the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation\n of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test\n passage to be made available to the Administrator or law\n enforcement upon request.\n ``(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance\n with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is\n made available to the Administrator or a designee of the\n Administrator or law enforcement upon request.\n ``(b) Other Operations.--Unmanned aircraft operations that\n do not conform to the limitations in subsection (a) must\n comply with all statutes and regulations generally applicable\n to unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems.\n ``(c) Operations at Fixed Sites.--\n ``(1) Operating procedure required.--Persons operating\n unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site\n within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the\n lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace\n designated for an airport, or a community-based organization\n conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall\n establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the\n air traffic control facility.\n ``(2) Unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds.--A\n person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55\n pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or\n carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if--\n ``(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and\n limitations developed by a community-based organization and\n approved by the Administrator; and\n ``(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as\n described in paragraph (1).\n ``(d) Updates.--\n ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with\n government and industry stakeholders, including community-\n based organizations, shall initiate a process to periodically\n update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as\n appropriate.\n ``(2) Considerations.--In updating an operational parameter\n under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--\n ``(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate risks\n to aviation safety and national security, including risk to\n the uninvolved public and critical infrastructure;\n ``(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and\n programming of a community-based organization;\n ``(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and\n classes of aircraft operating under this section;\n ``(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving\n unmanned aircraft systems;\n ``(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that\n updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and\n leverage, advances in technology; and\n ``(F) equipage requirements that facilitate safe,\n efficient, and secure operations and further integrate all\n unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System.\n ``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall be\n construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to\n require a person operating an unmanned aircraft under this\n section to seek permissive authority of the Administrator,\n beyond that required in subsection (a) of this section, prior\n to operation in the National Airspace System.\n ``(e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section\n shall be construed to limit the authority of the\n Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a\n person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the\n safety of the National Airspace System.\n ``(f) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section prohibits the\n Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to\n unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible\n for the exception set forth in this section, relating to--\n ``(1) updates to the operational parameters for unmanned\n aircraft in subsection (a);\n ``(2) the registration and marking of unmanned aircraft;\n ``(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and\n operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated\n unmanned aircraft; and\n ``(4) other standards consistent with maintaining the\n safety and security of the National Airspace System.\n ``(g) Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test.--\n ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date\n of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in\n consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems,\n other industry stakeholders, and community-based aviation\n organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and\n safety test that can be administered electronically.\n ``(2) Requirements.--The Administrator shall ensure the\n aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to\n adequately demonstrate an operator's--\n ``(A) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge; and\n ``(B) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration\n regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of\n an unmanned aircraft system in the National Airspace\n System.''.\n\n Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa of Hawaii\n\n Page 157, line 2, strike the semicolon and insert ``,\n including during emergency situations that may threaten\n public safety;''\n\n Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota\n\n Page 161, after line 22, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 342. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION PILOT\n PROGRAM.\n\n (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may\n establish a pilot program to enable enhanced drone operations\n as required in the October 25, 2017 Presidential Memorandum\n entitled ``Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot\n Program'' and described in 82 Federal Register 50301.\n (b) Applications.--The Secretary shall accept applications\n from State, local, and Tribal governments, in partnership\n with unmanned aircraft system operators and other private-\n sector stakeholders, to test and evaluate the integration of\n civil and public UAS operations into the low-altitude\n national airspace system.\n (c) Objectives.--The purpose of the pilot program is to\n accelerate existing UAS integration plans by working to solve\n technical, regulatory, and policy challenges, while enabling\n advanced UAS operations in select areas subject to ongoing\n safety oversight and cooperation between the Federal\n Government and applicable State, local, or Tribal\n jurisdictions, in order to--\n (1) accelerate the safe integration of UAS into the NAS by\n testing and validating new concepts of beyond visual line of\n sight operations in a controlled environment, focusing on\n detect and avoid technologies, command and control links,\n navigation, weather, and human factors;\n (2) address ongoing concerns regarding the potential\n security and safety risks associated with UAS operating in\n close proximity to human beings and critical infrastructure\n by ensuring that operators communicate more effectively with\n Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement to enable\n law enforcement to determine if a UAS operation poses such a\n risk;\n (3) promote innovation in and development of the United\n States unmanned aviation industry, especially in sectors such\n as agriculture, emergency management, inspection, and\n transportation safety, in which there are significant public\n benefits to be gained from the deployment of UAS; and\n (4) identify the most effective models of balancing local\n and national interests in UAS integration.\n\n[[Page H3647]]\n\n (d) Application Submission.--The Secretary shall establish\n application requirements and require applicants to include\n the following information:\n (1) Identification of the airspace to be used, including\n shape files and altitudes.\n (2) Description of the types of planned operations.\n (3) Identification of stakeholder partners to test and\n evaluate planned operations.\n (4) Identification of available infrastructure to support\n planned operations.\n (5) Description of experience with UAS operations and\n regulations.\n (6) Description of existing UAS operator and any other\n stakeholder partnerships and experience.\n (7) Description of plans to address safety, security,\n competition, privacy concerns, and community outreach.\n (e) Reasonable Time, Manner, and Place Limitations.--\n (1) In general.--\n (A) Requests.--The Lead Applicant may request reasonable\n time, place and manner limitations on low-altitude UAS\n operations within its jurisdiction to facilitate the proposed\n development and testing of new and innovative UAS concepts of\n operations in addition to other selection criteria.\n (B) Self-implementing provisions.--The Secretary shall\n require jurisdictions to ensure that any time, place and\n manner limitations, including those adopted through means\n such as legislation or regulation, include self-implementing\n provisions that automatically terminate those restrictions\n upon the termination of the Memorandum of Agreement.\n (C) Monitoring and enforcement.--\n (i) In general.--Monitoring and enforcement of any\n limitations enacted pursuant to this pilot project shall be\n the responsibility of the jurisdiction.\n (ii) Savings provision.--Nothing in clause (i) may be\n construed to prevent the Secretary from enforcing Federal\n law.\n (2) Examples.--Examples of reasonable time, manner, and\n place limitations may include--\n (A) prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening\n rush hours or only permitting flight during specified hours\n such as daylight hours, sufficient to ensure reasonable\n airspace access;\n (B) establishing designated take-off and landing zones,\n limiting operations over moving locations or fixed site\n public road and parks, sidewalks or private property based on\n zoning density, or other land use considerations;\n (C) requiring notice to public safety or zoning or land use\n authorities before operating;\n (D) limiting UAS operations within designated altitudes\n within airspace over the jurisdiction;\n (E) specifying maximum speed of flight over specified\n areas;\n (F) prohibiting operations in connection with community or\n sporting events that do not remain in one place (for example,\n parades and running events); and\n (G) mandating equipage.\n (f) Selection Criteria.--In making determinations, the\n Secretary shall evaluate whether applications meet or exceed\n the following criteria:\n (1) Overall economic, geographic, and climatic diversity of\n the selected jurisdictions.\n (2) Overall diversity of the proposed models of government\n involvement.\n (3) Overall diversity of the UAS operations to be\n conducted.\n (4) The location of critical infrastructure.\n (5) The involvement of commercial entities in the proposal\n and their ability to advance objectives that may serve the\n public interest as a result of further integration of UAS\n into the NAS.\n (6) The involvement of affected communities in, and their\n support for, participating in the pilot program.\n (7) The commitment of the governments and UAS operators\n involved in the proposal to comply with requirements related\n to national defense, homeland security, and public safety and\n to address competition, privacy, and civil liberties\n concerns.\n (8) The commitment of the governments and UAS operators\n involved in the proposal to achieve the following policy\n objectives:\n (A) Promoting innovation and economic development.\n (B) Enhancing transportation safety.\n (C) Enhancing workplace safety.\n (D) Improving emergency response and search and rescue\n functions.\n (E) Using radio spectrum efficiently and competitively.\n (g) Implementation.--The Secretary shall use the data\n collected and experience gained over the course of this pilot\n program to--\n (1) identify and resolve technical challenges to UAS\n integration;\n (2) address airspace use to safely and efficiently\n integrate all aircraft;\n (3) inform operational standards and procedures to improve\n safety (for example, detect and avoid capabilities,\n navigation and altitude performance, and command and control\n link);\n (4) inform FAA standards that reduce the need for waivers\n (for example, for operations over human beings, night\n operations, and beyond visual line of sight); and\n (5) address competing interests regarding UAS operational\n expansion, safety, security, roles and responsibilities of\n non-Federal Government entities, and privacy issues.\n (h) Definitions.--In this section:\n (1) The term ``Lead Applicant'' means an eligible State,\n local or Tribal government that has submitted a timely\n application.\n (2) The term ``NAS'' means the low-altitude national\n airspace system.\n (3) The term ``UAS'' means unmanned aircraft system.\n\n Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Schiff of California\n\n At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the\n following:\n\n SEC. 3__. ENFORCEMENT.\n\n (a) UAS Safety Enforcement.--The Administrator of the\n Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to\n utilize available remote detection and identification\n technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement\n actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that\n are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws,\n including regulations.\n (b) Reporting.--As part of the program, the Administrator\n shall establish and publicize a mechanism for the public and\n Federal, State, and local law enforcement to report suspected\n operation of unmanned aircraft in violation of applicable\n Federal laws and regulations.\n (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the\n date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, and\n annually thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the\n appropriate committees of Congress a report on the following:\n (1) The number of unauthorized unmanned aircraft operations\n detected in restricted airspace, including in and around\n airports, together with a description of such operations.\n (2) The number of enforcement cases brought by the Federal\n Aviation Administration or other Federal agencies for\n unauthorized operation of unmanned aircraft detected through\n the program, together with a description of such cases.\n (3) Recommendations for safety and operational standards\n for unmanned aircraft detection and mitigation systems.\n (4) Recommendations for any legislative or regulatory\n changes related to mitigation or detection or identification\n of unmanned aircraft systems.\n\n Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin\n\n At the end of subtitle B of title III of the bill, add the\n following:\n\n SEC. ___. ACTIVELY TETHERED PUBLIC UAS.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall issue such regulations as are\n necessary to authorize the use of certain actively tethered\n public unmanned aircraft system by government public safety\n agencies without any requirement to obtain a certificate of\n waiver, certificate of authorization, or other approval by\n the Federal Aviation Administration.\n (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to\n subsection (a) shall establish risk-based operational\n conditions for operation of actively tethered public unmanned\n aircraft systems by government public safety agencies that\n recognize and accommodate the unique operational\n circumstances of such systems, including the requirements\n that the aircraft component may only be operated--\n (1) within the line of sight of the operator;\n (2) less than 200 feet above the ground;\n (3) within class G airspace; and\n (4) at least 5 statute miles from the geographic center of\n a tower-controller airport or airport denoted on a current\n aeronautical chart published by the Federal Aviation\n Administration, except that an actively tethered public\n unmanned aircraft system may be operated closer than 5\n statute miles to the airport if--\n (A) the operator of the actively tethered public unmanned\n aircraft system provides prior notice to the airport operator\n and receives, for a tower-controlled airport, prior approval\n from the air traffic control facilitate located at the\n airport; or\n (B) the exigent circumstances of an emergency prevent the\n giving of notice contemplated by clause (i) and the actively\n tethered public unmanned aircraft system is operated outside\n the flight path of any manned aircraft.\n (c) Definition of Actively Tethered Public Unmanned\n Aircraft System.--The term ``actively tethered public\n unmanned aircraft system'' means public unmanned aircraft\n system in which the unmanned aircraft component--\n (1) weighs 4.4 pounds or less, including payload;\n (2) is physically attached to a ground station with a taut,\n appropriately load-rated tether that provides continuous\n power to the unmanned aircraft; and\n (3) is capable of being controlled and retrieved by such\n ground station through physical manipulation of the tether.\n\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gosar). Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon\n(Mr. DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.\n\nModification to Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania\n\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.\n25 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.\n\n[[Page H3648]]\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.\n The Clerk read as follows:\n Modification to amendment No. 25 printed in part A of House Report\nNo. 115-650 offered by Mr. Sanford of South Carolina:\n\n In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the\n following:\n The amendment is modified as follows:\n At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n SEC. 3__ SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.\n\n (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law\n relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems\n into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies,\n including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or\n regulation regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being\n developed as a model aircraft, except for--\n (1) rules regarding the registration of certain model\n aircraft pursuant to section 44103; and\n (2) rules regarding unmanned aircraft that by design\n provide advanced flight capabilities enabling active,\n sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond\n the visual line of sight of the operator, if--\n (A) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or\n recreational use;\n (B) the model aircraft operator is a current member of a\n community-based organization and whose aircraft is operated\n in accordance with the organization's safety rules;\n (C) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds\n unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,\n inspection, flight test, and operational safety program\n administered by a community-based organization;\n (D) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not\n interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;\n (E) the aircraft is not operated over or within the\n property of a fixed site facility that operates amusement\n rides available for use by the general public or the property\n extending 500 lateral feet beyond the perimeter of such\n facility unless the operation is authorized by the owner of\n the amusement facility; and\n (F) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator\n of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport\n air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is\n located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation\n (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location\n within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually\n agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and\n the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic\n facility is located at the airport)).\n (b) Automated Instant Authorization.--When the FAA has\n developed and implemented an automated airspace authorization\n system for the airspace in which the operator wants to\n operate, the model aircraft operator shall use this system\n for authorization to controlled airspace unless flown--\n (1) at a permanent location agreed to by the Administrator;\n and\n (2) in accordance with a mutually agreed upon operating\n procedure established with the airport operator and the\n airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic\n facility is located at the airport).\n (d) Commercial Operation for Instructional or Educational\n Purposes.--A flight of an unmanned aircraft shall be treated\n as a flight of a model aircraft for purposes of subsection\n (a) (regardless of any compensation, reimbursement, or other\n consideration exchanged or incidental economic benefit gained\n in the course of planning, operating, or supervising the\n flight), if the flight is--\n (1) conducted for instructional or educational purposes;\n and\n (2) operated or supervised by a member of a community-based\n organization recognized pursuant to subsection (e).\n (e) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be\n construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to\n pursue enforcement action against persons operating model\n aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace\n system.\n (f) Community-based Organization Defined.--In this section,\n the term ``community-based organization'' means a nationwide\n membership-based association entity that--\n (1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal\n Revenue Code of 1986;\n (2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal\n Revenue Code of 1986;\n (3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of\n model aviation;\n (4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for\n all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and\n operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe\n aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system\n and the protection and safety of individuals and property on\n the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety\n rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft\n that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active,\n sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond\n visual line of sight of the operator;\n (5) provides programming and support for any local charter\n organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and\n (6) provides assistance and support in the development and\n operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.\n (g) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.--In\n collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the\n Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180\n days of enactment that identifies the criteria and process\n required for recognition of nationwide community-based\n organizations. This recognition shall be in the form of a\n memorandum of agreement between the FAA and each community-\n based organization and does not require regulatory action to\n implement.\n (h) Effective Date.--Except for rules to implement remote\n identification for unmanned aircraft that by design provide\n advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and\n controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond the visual line\n of sight of the operator and for rules regarding the\n registration of certain model aircraft pursuant to section\n 44103, this section shall become effective when the rule,\n referred to in section 532 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of\n 2018, regarding revisions to part 107 of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations, becomes final.\n\n SEC. 3__. RECREATIONAL UAS.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall issue rules and regulations\n relating to small UAS flown for recreational or educational\n use, and that are not operated within all of the criteria\n outlined in the special rule for model aircraft in section\n 45505 of title 49, United States Code, or the requirements of\n part 107 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.\n (b) Regulatory Authority.--When issuing the rules and\n regulation pursuant to this section, the Administrator\n shall--\n (1) require the completion of an online or electronic\n educational tutorial that is focused on knowledge of the\n primary rules necessary for the safe operation of such UAS\n and whose completion time is of reasonable length and limited\n duration;\n (2) include provisions that enable the operation of such\n UAS by individuals under the age of 16 without a certificated\n pilot;\n (3) require UAS operators within Class B, C, D and E\n airspace to obtain authorization, as the Administrator may\n determine to be necessary within that airspace, but only\n after the Federal Aviation Administration has developed and\n implemented an automated airspace authorization system for\n the airspace in which the operator wants to operate; and\n (4) include provisions that provide specific operational\n rules for UAS operating in close proximity to airports in\n class G airspace.\n (c) Maintaining Broad Access to UAS Technology.--When\n issuing rules or regulations for the operation of UAS under\n this section, the Administrator shall not--\n (1) require the pilot or operator of the UAS to obtain or\n hold an airman certificate;\n (2) require a practical flight examination, medical\n examination, or the completion of a flight training program;\n (3) limit such UAS operations to pre-designated fixed\n locations or uncontrolled airspace; or\n (4) require airworthiness certification of any UAS operated\n pursuant to this section.\n (d) Collaboration.--The Administrator shall carry out this\n section in collaboration with industry and community-based\n organizations.\n\n Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent\nthat the reading of the modification be dispensed with.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en\nbloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and the\nminority.\n These Members put forth thoughtful amendments, and I am pleased to be\nable to support moving them en bloc.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of these amendments en bloc.\nThis grouping includes many Democratic and Republican amendments, and\neach, as the chairman has said, has been approved by the majority and\nthe minority for consideration en bloc.\n Among the amendments in this package is my comprehensive solution to\nthe ever-growing list of safety and security concerns that have\nresulted from an unwise provision of law adopted in 2012.\n That law prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from\npromulgating any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for hobby\nor recreational purposes.\n Let me repeat: any rule or regulation relating to drones flown for\nhobby or recreational purposes.\n This was put in at the behest of model aircraft folks, who have a\nlong\n\n[[Page H3649]]\n\nand very responsible history, know the rules of the road in the air,\nbut now there are millions of other people now operating relatively\ninexpensive drones. Things have changed pretty dramatically in that\ntime period, and we sorely need some reasonable regulations.\n There are very strong national security concerns expressed by\nHomeland and Secret Service and others, and they are saying that\nbasically they are going to hold back any rules regarding drones until\nthey can be assured that the operators and the drone can be identified,\nwhich the commercial people can easily do.\n\n {time} 1345\n\n It would be an expense for the recreational manufacturers so there is\na competing amendment that is more conciliatory toward the Chinese\ndrone manufacturers, which is a concern I don't have.\n Sooner or later, one of these little toy drones is going to take down\nan aircraft and people are going to die. Plain and simple. They have\nalready conducted tests on the hull, and they have found that a small\nquadcopter can cause fatal damage to aircraft controls. And they\nhaven't even done the ingestion test yet into a jet engine, a turbine\nengine, where you will see more uncontained failures like the one we\nsaw last week.\n So it is critical that we get a handle on this and the proliferation\nof these with people with little or no experience or knowledge of\naviation rules. Countless stakeholders are supporting my version, which\nwould be the commercial drone industry, U.S. airlines and pilots, air\ntraffic controllers, aircraft manufacturers, State and local entities.\n They have all been asking for modification or repeal of that\nprovision prohibiting the FAA from regulating recreational drone users.\nUntil this is done, our skies will be less safe and the true potential\nof the commercial drone industry will never be unlocked because of the\nsecurity concerns that I already mentioned.\n My amendment, among other things, grants the FAA the authority to\nimpose standards on recreational users as needed, ensure the safety of\nour airspace system going forward, including requirements remotely\nidentifying and tracking drone operators. That first step is critical\nto protecting sensitive facilities, assets, and addressing the concerns\nof Homeland Security, Secret Service, and others.\n Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment en bloc, and I reserve\nthe balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds all Members not to traffic the\nwell while another Member is under recognition.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a valued member of the\ncommittee.\n Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I am proud to speak in\nsupport of this en bloc amendment, and then also in support of H.R. 4.\n It is finally a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. Two programs of\nvital importance to my district are the Essential Air Service program\nand the Contract Tower Program. Both programs are critical to rural\nareas and are protected in this bill.\n The bill also includes a provision I authorized and authored to\nensure small low-risk microdrones can be operated safely, but also\nunder different operational requirements than larger drones. Safely and\nmore appropriately integrating microdrones into the airspace will\nfoster innovation at companies like Horizon Hobby in my district and\nincentivize better operator compliance.\n H.R. 4 also includes important customer service provisions. It\nprohibits involuntary bumping of passengers once they have already\nboarded an aircraft. It makes fees and taxes more transparent, and when\nconsumers have complaints about their flying experience, this bill will\nallow them to call a hotline or use an app on their smartphone.\n I also want to mention the disaster title of this bill. It is\nactually a shame that I have to speak about this again today because\nthis House already passed this legislation last December.\nUnfortunately, our colleagues in the Senate stripped these provisions\nout of the disaster supplemental package we passed earlier this year,\nbut now we have an opportunity to finally get this crucial legislation\nsigned into law.\n Included in this package is my bill, the Disaster Declaration\nImprovement Act, which requires FEMA to place a greater weight and\nconsideration on severe, localized impact of damage following a\ndisaster. Passing this bill will have real impact in States like\nIllinois where a large portion of our population is concentrated in a\nsmall geographical area in the northeast portion of our State.\n Enacting this language into law will help level the playing field,\nand help ensure rural areas like my district are given a fair shake\nwhen disasters happen and help is needed.\n I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for\nworking to include this disaster package in this bill, and for all of\nthe hard work on the underlying bill, and I urge adoption of the bill.\n\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Lipinski), a member of the committee.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and Chairman\nShuster for their work on this bill, on this block of amendments, in\nwhich I have an amendment that I drafted that would allow airports to\napply for grants from the small airport fund to construct air traffic\ncontrol towers for participation in the Federal Contract Tower Program.\n This provision will ensure that our airspace remains the gold\nstandard for safety by helping small airports currently operating\nwithout towers to invest in lifesaving safety infrastructure.\n It is my understanding that because this will be a new eligibility,\nthe FAA will need to classify the construction of an air traffic\ncontrol tower under the Airports Capital Improvement Plan to ensure\nthat it is scored properly for purposes of determining grant awards\nthrough the national priority ranking system.\n Mr. Chair, I ask the chairman if he will agree with me that: first,\nthe FAA has never classified control towers under ACIP before; second,\nthat the FAA should plan to ensure that these high-priority projects\nare classified properly for consideration in grant decisions; and\nthird, that they should be classified in a manner that provides them\nwith an appropriate, level playing field with other projects to ensure\ncompetitiveness, and I ask the chairman if he agrees on these three\nprovisions.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, we will be committed to working with the\ngentleman as we move forward.\n Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.\nLewis), a member of our committee.\n Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for all of\nhis hard on H.R. 4.\n Mr. Chair, I am pleased that my amendment to codify the FAA's\nUnmanned Aircraft Systems Integrated Pilot Program is included in this\nen bloc package.\n Drones are an innovation that I know our country is anxious to take\nadvantage of. However, it brings with it a need to rethink and redefine\nsome current policies. Aviation regulations that manage the flow of air\ntraffic at 30,000 feet, or even 1,000 feet, do not make sense when\nmanaging the operation of a UAS 5 feet off the ground.\n Congress should formally support this pilot program and learn from\nthe data gathered here. We must also recognize the importance of non-\nFederal bodies like States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to\nbe part of the drone oversight. This pilot program, which my amendment\ncodifies and which stem from a White House proposal, will help us do\njust that, and it has been widely supported.\n In fact, drone associations, traditional aviation groups, and large\ncompanies wrote in support of the pilot program. We hope that by\nCongress codifying the pilot program, the Department of Transportation\nwill now expand the pilot program to further participation.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is\nremaining on each side.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 5\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\\1/2\\ minutes\nremaining.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nWashington (Ms. Jayapal).\n\n[[Page H3650]]\n\n Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and\nRanking Member DeFazio for including two of my amendments in the en\nbloc package. The gentlemen have set a high bar for leadership and\ncollegiality through this process, and I look forward to working with\nthem as the FAA implements this bill.\n My amendments focus on two issues important not only to the residents\nof Washington's Seventh District, but across the country; namely, the\nissue of airplane noise and infrastructure needs of fast-growing\nairports like Sea-Tac.\n Many of our communities with large and medium airports are growing by\nleaps and bounds. According to Airports Council International, over the\nlast 10 years, Sea-Tac's passenger traffic has grown by 52.6 percent,\nsecond only to San Francisco. We need to be certain that our\ncommunities are able to prepare for that growth, while still ensuring\nthat they remain livable.\n These amendments will help to build that evidence base, and I deeply\nappreciate the consideration.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nKansas (Mr. Estes).\n Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to propose an amendment\nto section 232 of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act.\n As a Representative of the Fourth District of Kansas, which includes\nWichita, also known as the Air Capital of the World, I have a deep\nappreciation for the importance of the aviation industry in our region\nand country.\n For more than 100 years, our community has pioneered aviation and\nmanufacturing. Today, the greater Wichita area is home to many of the\nworld's largest aviation manufacturers and produces nearly 50 percent\nof all general aviation planes built.\n Without question, aviation is a great source of pride for all\nKansans, and I want to thank Chairman Shuster and the Transportation\nand Infrastructure Committee for their efforts to support the industry\nand modernize the FAA.\n As part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress has tasked\nthe FAA administrator to establish a task force on flight standards\nreform. I believe creating this task force to improve aviation safety\nstandards is a needed and overdue initiative.\n The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nKansas.\n Mr. ESTES of Kansas. H.R. 4 mandates the task force be comprised of\nrepresentatives from air carriers, general and business aviation,\nrepair stations, unmanned aviation systems, flight schools, and\naviation safety inspectors.\n\n Today, I am offering an amendment to the task force to also include\nrepresentatives of aircraft manufacturers. I believe those responsible\nfor producing our Nation's aircraft can play a valuable role in\nupdating aviation standards and should have a voice.\n I want to thank our colleagues for their attention to the industry\nand consideration of this amendment, and ask that they support the FAA\nReauthorization Act.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nIllinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).\n Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking\nmember for including my amendment in the en bloc.\n My amendment would require the FAA to study the economic harm caused\nby excessive aircraft noise on communities and businesses near major\nairports.\n Companies adjacent to airports, such as O'Hare International Airport\nin my district, see that flight paths have to contend with the economic\nactivity in that region, and noise disrupts their customers and\ninterferes with business, in addition to the physiological effects that\nconstant noise has on employees.\n Under my amendment, the FAA will study what happens to businesses\nwhen they are subject to excessive noise throughout the workday. This\nwill include, but is not limited to, employee productivity and\nretention, workplace morale and satisfaction, and other data to help\npolicymakers grasp the full effect of airport noise on neighborhoods.\n This is a bipartisan, commonsense amendment, and again, I thank the\ncommittee for including it in the en bloc.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nFlorida (Mr. Crist).\n Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member\nfor their leadership and bipartisanship on this bill.\n Americans who watched 60 Minutes last weekend or who read the Tampa\nBay Times were shocked by serious airline safety concerns--specifically\nwith Allegiant Airlines, a carrier that operates 95 percent of the\ntraffic at my hometown airport. It raises questions about the FAA's\n``compliance philosophy,'' focused on fewer enforcement actions, more\nworking quietly with the airlines behind the scenes on safety issues.\n I sure hope it is true that airlines are more likely to self-report\nsafety incidents if they do not fear retribution, but lives are at\nstake, and we must get the facts. My amendment would require an\ninvestigation into whether this hands-off approach is, in fact,\nworking. Profits can never trump passenger safety.\n Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this straightforward\namendment.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nWashington (Mr. Kilmer), my neighbor to the north.\n Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n I rise today in support of my amendment, which would modify the\nAirport Improvement Program to require the FAA to explicitly consider\nthe emergency preparedness needs of the communities served when\nreviewing an airport's master plan.\n Currently, the FAA relies primarily on a number of enplanements when\nmaking their funding determinations under the AIP. That disadvantages\nrural airports like William R. Fairchild International Airport in my\ndistrict, which serves as a critical component of the State's and\nFEMA's emergency response plan for the region, but has relatively few\nenplanements.\n This commonsense improvement would help ensure that Fairchild and\nother airports like it will be able to secure the funding necessary to\nmaintain their runway and other critical infrastructure so that the\nresources are available when disaster strikes.\n This matters to folks in my neck of the woods who live in the shadow\nof the Cascadia subduction zone. When the big one hits, the Fairchild\nAirport will be essential to deploying emergency supplies, as well as\nfor evacuating people to safety.\n I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for\ntheir support of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote\n``yes'' on it.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to\nsupport the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, Soto amendment number 3 to H.R. 4, FAA\nReauthorization Act of 2018, would require a sink or sanitizing\nequipment in the lactation area in commercial service airports.\n This small but significant change would benefit traveling mothers and\nchildren. A 2014 study in Breastfeeding Medicine showed that only 62 of\nthe top 100 passenger-volume U.S. airports labeled themselves as\n``breastfeeding friendly''. However, they found that only eight of the\n100 surveyed airports provided the minimum requirements for a lactation\nroom, as set forth under Section 122 of this bill.\n I am pleased to see that this bill would require medium or large hub\nairports to maintain lactation areas in each passenger terminal\nbuilding with minimum requirements of a chair, table, and electrical\noutlet. With the inclusion of my amendment, traveling mother will now\nhave access to sanitation equipment, too.\n I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the staff of\nthe House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their\nsupport and for working with me on this amendment. I thank my\ncolleagues for their support on this issue.\n Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, Soto amendment, Soto number 21, to the FAA\nReauthorization Act of 2018, H.R. 4, would require the FAA\nAdministrator to also consider the potential emergency medical needs of\npregnant women when evaluating the minimum contents of approved medical\nkits--currently the bill only\n\n[[Page H3651]]\n\nspecifies the consideration of children's emergency medical needs.\n Obstetrical symptoms, while rare causes of in-flight medical\nemergencies, should be given consideration when evaluating the adequacy\nof in-flight emergency medical kits.\n I am pleased to see that this bill would require the consideration of\nthe potential emergency medical needs of pregnant women. I thank\nChairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the staff of the House\nTransportation and Infrastructure Committee, for their support and for\nworking with me on this amendment. I also thank my colleagues for their\nsupport on this issue.\n Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc #1\namendment package to H.R. 4, which includes my amendment (#2). I am\nproud to offer an amendment that responds to a key and grave local\nmatter.\n My amendment is simple: It would allow airports to use Federal funds\nto buy generators for passenger areas of the airport, something they\ncurrently are not able to do. It would also let airports separate\nbackup power from the main power lines, and to complete other projects\nto prevent power outages using A.I.P. and P.F.C. funds.\n As you know, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the\nworld's busiest airport, is located in my Congressional district. Last\nDecember, an underground fire disabled both the airport's primary and\nbackup power supplies. This caused a power outage that lasted for 11\nhours, cancelling hundreds of flights and stranding passengers and\nemployees on planes and in dark terminals.\n Fortunately, no one was hurt, but this event raised important public\nsafety questions. The City of Atlanta and Georgia Power are looking\ninto what happened and what can be done to prevent a similar event from\noccurring in the future. I look forward to their report. My common-\nsense amendment will give airports the flexibility they need to keep\nthe lights on and passengers safe.\n Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to all the\npolice, firefighters, electricians, and airport, airline, and MARTA\nemployees for their work to assist stranded travelers. I would also\nlike to thank the tens of thousands of passengers who remained calm and\npatient throughout this unprecedented ordeal.\n I appreciate the support of the Chairman and the Ranking Member and\nthank them and their staffs for working with me on this issue. I look\nforward to continuing to work with them to keep the travelling public\nsafe.\n I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as\nmodified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n The en bloc amendments, as modified, were agreed to.\n\n {time} 1400\n\n Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Roskam\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION AND SAFETY STUDY.\n\n (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall initiate a study to review and\n evaluate existing studies and analyses of the relationship\n between jet aircraft approach and takeoff speeds and\n corresponding noise impacts on communities surrounding\n airports.\n (b) Considerations.--In conducting the study initiated\n under subsection (a), the Administrator shall determine--\n (1) whether a decrease in jet aircraft approach or takeoff\n speeds results in significant aircraft noise reductions;\n (2) whether the jet aircraft approach or takeoff speed\n reduction necessary to achieve significant noise reductions--\n (A) jeopardizes aviation safety; or\n (B) decreases the efficiency of the National Airspace\n System, including lowering airport capacity, increasing\n travel times, or increasing fuel burn;\n (3) the advisability of using jet aircraft approach or\n takeoff speeds as a noise mitigation technique; and\n (4) if the Administrator determines that using jet aircraft\n approach or takeoff speeds as a noise mitigation technique is\n advisable, whether any of the metropolitan areas specifically\n identified in section 157(b)(2) would benefit from such a\n noise mitigation technique without a significant impact to\n aviation safety or the efficiency of the National Airspace\n System.\n (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of\n the study initiated under subsection (a).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.\n Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, briefly, the Roskam amendment does the\nfollowing:\n It recognizes that my constituency, and I think a lot of others, want\nthe benefits of living near a large international airport but not as\nmuch of the burden. Here is the backstory about what is going on.\n My constituency is right next door to O'Hare Airport, which, as an\ninternational airport, brings incredible convenience to my flying\nconstituents and also incredible commerce and opportunity. That is a\ngood thing.\n The problem is the burdens of the noise of the airport rest\ndisproportionately with some communities. These are communities that\nhave found themselves with different flight patterns in different\nsituations where, all of a sudden, a flight pattern from years ago is\nnow something that they are seeing overhead.\n One constituent of mine in Wayne, Illinois, complained that the noise\nsometimes is 30 seconds apart for hours on end. Another complained that\ntheir house actually shakes because of the planes that are flying so\nclose. Mr. Chairman, you can imagine how difficult this would be to\nlive in this type of situation.\n Realizing that we want the benefits of an international airport and\nalso as quiet a situation as possible, I have worked with my Republican\nand Democratic colleagues to find common ground.\n A scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has\ncompleted computer modeling and found that reducing plane takeoff\nspeeds by 35 miles per hour would dramatically reduce the noise\npollution and only lengthen flight time by a mere 30 seconds.\n This commonsense amendment directs the FAA to study this proposal and\nreport back to Congress on whether or not this will alleviate the\nnuisance that too many of my constituents have had to deal with.\n Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from across the aisle,\nCongresswoman Speier, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the\namendment, although I am in favor of it.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is\nrecognized for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.\n I actually, recently, had a conversation with the Acting FAA\nAdministrator on this very subject. I think it is something that could\nhelp mitigate. Since we have moved to performance-based navigation and\nchanged for more efficient approaches to safe fuel, the airlines are\nbenefiting tremendously, but it has concentrated the noise over a\nnarrow area.\n I have also asked the FAA if it would be possible to vary the\napproaches on performance-based so that you are not always, every day,\nevery hour, every minute, going over exactly the same position. I think\nthat is also something they should look at.\n Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment, and I yield back\nthe balance of my time.\n Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon\nfor his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question is on\nthe amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Denham\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title I, insert the following:\n\n[[Page H3652]]\n\n SEC. 1__. JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE\n ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES.\n\n Section 330(e) of title 23, United States Code, is\n amended--\n (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``2 years'' and\n inserting ``150 days as set forth in section 139(l)''; and\n (2) in paragraph (3)(B)(i) by striking ``2 years'' and\n inserting ``150 days as set forth in section 139(l)''.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the bipartisan Denham-Costa\namendment which eliminates duplication of environmental reviews.\n The MAP-21 highway bill created the NEPA assignment program in 2012,\nwhich allows States to assume responsibility for environmental review,\nconsultation, and compliance of NEPA for Federal aid highway projects\nand other transportation projects. The program removes an entire layer\nof Federal bureaucracy from the NEPA process, allowing States and\ncounties to operate more efficiently.\n NEPA assignment has been a success, saving time and cost of\ninfrastructure projects across six States: California, Texas, Florida,\nOhio, Utah, and Alaska. Two more States, Arizona and Nebraska, are in\nthe process of applying, and all 50 States are eligible to participate.\n The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee built on the success\nof the NEPA assignment program in the 2015 FAST Act by establishing the\nNEPA reciprocity program. The NEPA reciprocity program allows States\nwith environmental laws that are at least as stringent as NEPA to make\nthe approval of reviews under State laws and regulations and in\nreplacement of NEPA. This allows States to remove parallel and\nredundant NEPA requirements from their own environmental process, which\nwill get projects built faster and at a lower cost. In other words,\nthis not only allows one environmental review, but stops us from doing\ntwo.\n As reasonable and promising as this program is, the judicial review\nperiod or window that litigants can challenge a record of decisions is\nnearly five times longer than for Federal aid highway projects that are\nsubject to NEPA. The judicial review period for the reciprocity program\nis 2 years, substantially increasing the risk of litigation and\ndissuading States from pursuing the program.\n This amendment harmonizes the statute of limitation for the program\nwith other Federal highway projects to 150 days. Instead of delaying 2\nyears for lawsuits, we do it in 150 days, the same as all other Federal\nhighway projects.\n This commonsense change would render the program workable as\noriginally intended in the FAST Act. This program would allow States\nimpacted by the 2017 major disasters to rebuild devastated communities\nfaster and at a lower cost, saving taxpayer dollars.\n Many wildfire-impacted counties in California have recognized the\npotential benefits of NEPA reciprocity for their recovery efforts and\nare pushing the State to participate. This amendment would allow\nCalifornia and other impacted States with major disasters, like Texas\nand Florida, to apply and rebuild in short order.\n In September 2017, the Department of Transportation issued the notice\nof proposed rulemaking, and the comment period closed in November. DOT\nshould issue the rule to establish the program soon, and this\nmodification must be in place for the program to be workable at that\ntime.\n There has been a lot of discussion about environmental review and\npermitting reform being included in the infrastructure package, and for\ngood reason: projects take too long and they cost way too much money.\nWe have an opportunity to ensure streamlining programs that are already\nlaw are working correctly by passing this amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Costa).\n Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment\nbeing offered by Congressman Denham and me to H.R. 4, and I thank the\ngentleman for yielding.\n Together, we have worked long and hard to reduce the duplicative\nenvironmental permitting requirements that contribute, as we all know,\nto delays in delivery of important transportation projects throughout\nthe Nation and throughout California, as both Congressman Denham and I\nhave experienced.\n California remains at the forefront of finding innovative ways to\nstreamline the transportation delivery project without compromising the\nnatural environment and complying with environmental laws. As a matter\nof fact, we have a very big initiative that was passed last year to\nprovide another $52 billion in construction projects over the next 10\nyears. So this is an important amendment.\n In 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which implemented a pilot\nprogram to provide reciprocity for environmental permitting for States\nlike California that have laws that provide equal or greater\nenvironmental protection. That is the case with California. That is why\nthis amendment is so applicable and why it makes such good common\nsense.\n This amendment would further streamline the delegation process, as\nthe gentleman noted, reduce project delivery times and costs, lead to\nmore projects being constructed at a faster rate, and improve our\ndeteriorating infrastructure.\n For all these good reasons, we ought to adopt this amendment. I urge\nmy colleagues to concur.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I rose in opposition, my\nprincipal concern is this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation\nas we adopted the FAST Act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot\nprojects.\n We gave the task, as we normally do, to the Department of\nTransportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the\npilot program, but DOT has not yet acted to establish those rules. So I\nhave concerns about putting strictures on the Department of\nTransportation before they have had an opportunity to implement the\nrule, which, hopefully, will be soon forthcoming. I assume it is not\none of these rules that the President has held up from being issued,\nsince it would be something beneficial, if properly done.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Denham).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania\n\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer\namendments en bloc.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.\n Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34,\n35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,\n61, 62, 64, and 65 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered\nby Shuster of Pennsylvania:\n\n amendment no. 31 offered by mr. cramer of north dakota\n\n In title III, at the end of subtitle B add the following:\n\n SEC. 342. REPORT ON POSSIBLE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS\n OPERATION ON SPECTRUM ALLOCATED FOR AVIATION\n USE.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, and after consultation with relevant\n stakeholders, the Federal Aviation Administration, the\n National Telecommunications and Information Administration,\n and the Federal Communications Commission, shall submit to\n the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of\n the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and\n Commerce of the House of Representatives a report--\n (1) on whether unmanned aircraft systems operations should\n be permitted on spectrum designated for aviation use, on an\n unlicensed, shared, or exclusive basis, for operations within\n the UTM system or outside of such a system;\n (2) that addresses any technological, statutory,\n regulatory, and operational barriers to the use of such\n spectrum for unmanned aircraft systems operations; and\n (3) that, if it is determined that spectrum designated for\n aviation use is not suitable for operations by unmanned\n aircraft systems, includes recommendations of other\n\n[[Page H3653]]\n\n spectrum frequencies that may be appropriate for such\n operations.\n (b) Definitions.--In this section:\n (1) Unmanned aircraft system.--The term ``unmanned aircraft\n system'' means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements\n (including communication links and the components that\n control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the\n pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the\n national airspace system.\n (2) UTM.--The term ``UTM'' means an unmanned aircraft\n traffic management system or service.\n\n amendment no. 32 offered by mr. lobiondo of new jersey\n\n At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. U.S. COUNTER-UAS SYSTEM REVIEW OF INTERAGENCY\n COORDINATION PROCESSES.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after that date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration, in consultation with government\n agencies currently authorized to operate Counter-Unmanned\n Aircraft System (C-UAS) systems within the United States\n (including the territories and possessions of the United\n States), shall initiate a review of the following:\n (1) The process the Administration is utilizing for\n interagency coordination of C-UAS activity pursuant to a\n relevant Federal statute authorizing such activity within the\n United States (including the territories and possessions of\n the United States).\n (2) The standards the Administration is utilizing for\n operation of a C-UAS systems pursuant to a relevant Federal\n statute authorizing such activity within the United States\n (including the territories and possessions of the United\n States), including whether the following criteria are being\n taken into consideration in the development of the standards:\n (A) Safety of the national airspace.\n (B) Protecting individuals and property on the ground.\n (C) Non-interference with avionics of manned aircraft, and\n unmanned aircraft, operating legally in the national\n airspace.\n (D) Non-interference with air traffic control systems.\n (E) Consistent procedures in the operation of C-UAS systems\n to the maximum extent practicable.\n (F) Adequate coordination procedures and protocols with the\n Federal Aviation Administration during the operation of C-UAS\n systems.\n (G) Adequate training for personnel operating C-UAS\n systems.\n (H) Assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the\n coordination and review processes to ensure national airspace\n safety while minimizing bureaucracy.\n (I) Such other matters the Administrator deems necessary\n for the safe and lawful operation of C-UAS systems.\n (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date upon\n which the review in subsection (a) is initiated, the\n Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation\n and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the\n Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives,\n and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in\n the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services of the\n Senate, a report on the Administration's activities related\n to C-UAS systems, including--\n (1) any coordination with Federal agencies and States,\n subdivisions and States, political authorities of at least 2\n States that operate C-UAS systems; and\n (2) an assessment of the standards being utilized for the\n operation of a counter-UAS systems within the United States\n (including the territories and possessions of the United\n States).\n\n amendment no. 33 offered by mrs. davis of california\n\n Page 151, before line 17, insert the following (and\n redesignate accordingly):\n (6) the Administrator should--\n (A) place particular priority in continuing measures,\n including partnering with nongovernmental organizations and\n State and local agencies, to educate the public about the\n dangers to public safety of operating unmanned aircraft over\n areas that have temporary flight restrictions in place, for\n purposes such as wildfires, without appropriate approval or\n authorization from the Forest Service; and\n (B) partner with State and local agencies to effectively\n enforce relevant laws so that unmanned aircrafts do not\n interfere with the efforts of emergency responders;\n\n amendment no. 34 offered by mr. sanford of south carolina\n\n Page 161, after line 11, insert the following:\n (d) Program Alignment.--The Secretary shall submit a report\n to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure\n and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and\n Transportation within 90 days after enactment of this Act\n that describes how each of the following programs will be\n executed or implemented in a systematic and timely manner to\n avoid duplication, leverage capabilities learned across\n programs, and support the safe integration of UAS into the\n national airspace:\n (1) Commercially-operated Low Altitude Authorization and\n Notification Capability.\n (2) The Unmanned Aircraft System Integration Pilot Program.\n (3) The Unmanned Traffic Management Pilot Program.\n\n amendment no. 35 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island\n\n Page 181, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph\n (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):\n (2) Compensation (regarding rebooking options, refunds,\n meals, and lodging) for flight diversions.\n\n amendment no. 36 offered by mr. cardenas of california\n\n Page 182, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. OVERBOOKING POLICIES OF AIR CARRIERS.\n\n (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a\n study on the overbooking policies of air carriers and how the\n policies impact the United States economy.\n (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall\n assess the effects of the overbooking policies on increasing\n or decreasing the costs of passenger air transportation.\n (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress\n a report on the results of the study.\n\n amendment no. 37 offered by ms. meng of new york\n\n Page 182, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. ___. TRAINING POLICIES REGARDING RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND\n RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the\n United States shall submit to Congress a report describing--\n (1) each air carrier's training policy for its employees\n and contractors regarding racial, ethnic, and religious\n nondiscrimination; and\n (2) how frequently an air carrier is required to train new\n employees and contractors because of turnover in positions\n that require such training.\n (b) Best Practices.--After the date the report is submitted\n under subsection (1), the Secretary of Transportation shall\n develop and disseminate to air carriers best practices\n nevessary to improve the training policies described in\n subsection (a), based on the findings of the report and in\n consultation with--\n (1) passengers of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious\n backgrounds;\n (2) national organizations that represent impacted\n communities;\n (3) air carrier;\n (4) airport operators; and\n (5) contract service providers.\n\n amendment no. 38 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon\n\n At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following new\n section:\n\n SEC. 4__. AVIATION CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND COMPLAINT RESOLUTION\n IMPROVEMENT.\n\n (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall\n review aviation consumer complaints received that allege a\n violation of law and, as appropriate, pursue enforcement or\n corrective actions that would be in the public interest.\n (b) Considerations.--In considering which cases to pursue\n for enforcement or corrective action under subsection (a),\n the Secretary shall consider--\n (1) the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986\n (Public Law 99-435; 100 Stat. 1080);\n (2) unfair and deceptive practices by air carriers, foreign\n air carriers, and ticket agents;\n (3) the terms and conditions agreed to between passengers\n and air carriers, foreign air carriers, or ticket agents;\n (4) aviation consumer protection and tarmac delay\n contingency planning requirements for both airports and\n airlines; and\n (5) any other applicable law.\n (c) Aviation Consumer Advocate.--\n (1) In general.--Within the Aviation Consumer Protection\n Division of the Department of Transportation, there shall be\n established the position of Aviation Consumer Advocate.\n (2) Functions.--The Aviation Consumer Advocate shall--\n (A) assist consumers in resolving carrier service\n complaints filed with the Aviation Consumer Protection\n Division;\n (B) evaluate the resolution by the Department of\n Transportation of carrier service complaints;\n (C) identify and recommend actions the Department can take\n to improve the enforcement of aviation consumer protection\n rules and resolution of carrier service complaints; and\n (D) identify and recommend regulations and policies that\n can be amended to more effectively resolve carrier service\n complaints.\n (d) Annual Reports.--The Secretary, acting through the\n Aviation Consumer Advocate, shall submit to the Committee on\n Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives an annual report summarizing the\n following:\n (1) The total number of annual complaints received by the\n Secretary, including the number of complaints by the name of\n each air carrier and foreign air carrier.\n (2) The total number of annual complaints by category of\n complaint.\n (3) The number of complaints referred in the preceding year\n for enforcement or correction action by the Secretary.\n (4) Any recommendations under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of\n subsection (c)(2).\n\n[[Page H3654]]\n\n (5) Such other data as the Aviation Consumer Advocate\n considers appropriate.\n\n amendment no. 39 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island\n\n At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:\n\n SEC. 44_. REGULATIONS ENSURING ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS\n WITH DISABILITIES IN AIR TRANSPORTATION.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation\n shall--\n (1) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations\n to ensure that individuals with disabilities who request\n assistance while traveling in air transportation receive\n dignified, timely, and effective assistance at airports and\n on aircraft from trained personnel; and\n (2) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations\n related to air carrier training programs for air carrier\n personnel, including contractors, who provide physical\n assistance to passengers with disabilities to ensure that\n training under such programs--\n (A) occurs on an appropriate schedule for all new and\n continuing personnel charged with providing physical\n assistance; and\n (B) includes, as appropriate, instruction by personnel,\n with hands-on training for employees who physically lift or\n otherwise physically assist passengers with disabilities,\n including the use of relevant equipment.\n (b) Types of Assistance.--The assistance referred to\n subsection (a)(1) may include requests for assistance in\n boarding or deplaning an aircraft, requests for assistance in\n connecting between flights, and other similar or related\n requests, as appropriate.\n (c) Air Carrier Defined.--In this section, the term ``air\n carrier'' means an air carrier or foreign air carrier (as\n those terms are defined in section 40102(a) of title 49,\n United States Code).\n\n amendment no. 40 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona\n\n Page 190, after line 6, insert the following (and\n redesignate accordingly):\n (b) Required Analysis on Communities.--In carrying out\n subsection (a)(2)(E) the Comptroller General shall include,\n for each option for further reform, an analysis of the impact\n on local economies of communities with airports receiving\n Essential Air Service funding, access to air travel for\n residents of rural communities and the impact to local\n businesses in such communities.\n\n amendment no. 43 offered by mr. espaillat of new york\n\n Page 266, line 25, strike the semicolon and insert ``,\n including the fees charged to ground transportation providers\n for airport access;''.\n\n amendment no. 45 offered by mr. sanford of south carolina\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. STUDY ON AIRPORT REVENUE DIVERSION.\n\n (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United\n States shall initiate a study of--\n (1) the legal and financial challenges related to repealing\n the exception in section 47107(b)(2) of title 49, United\n States Code, for those airports the Federal Aviation\n Administration has identified are covered by the exception;\n and\n (2) measures that may be taken to mitigate the impact of\n repealing the exception.\n (b) Contents.--The study required under subsection (a)\n shall address--\n (1) the level of revenue diversion at the airports covered\n by the exception described in subsection (a)(1) and the uses\n of the diverted revenue;\n (2) the terms of any bonds or financial covenants an\n airport owner has issued relying on diverted airport revenue;\n (3) applicable local laws or ordinances requiring use of\n airport revenue for non-airport purposes;\n (4) whether repealing the exception would improve the long-\n term financial performance of impacted airports; and\n (5) any other practical implications of repealing the\n exception for airports or the national aviation system.\n (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit\n to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the\n House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the\n results of the study.\n\n amendment no. 48 offered by mr. fleischmann of tennessee\n\n At the end of title V add the following:\n\n SEC. __. GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIALS.\n\n The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,\n to the extent practicable, shall encourage the use of\n durable, resilient, and sustainable materials and practices,\n including the use of geosynthetic materials and other\n innovative technologies, in carrying out the activities of\n the Federal Aviation Administration.\n\n amendment no. 50 offered by ms. meng of new york\n\n Add at the end of title V the following:\n\n SEC. ___. RULE FOR ANIMALS.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Secretary shall issue a rule to require each primary\n airport (as defined in section 47102 of title 49, United\n States Code) to provide a designated area for animals,\n traveling with their owners, to relieve themselves.\n\n amendment no. 51 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan\n\n At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. ___. ENHANCED AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a\n pilot program to provide air traffic control services on a\n preferential basis to aircraft equipped with certain NextGen\n avionics that--\n (1) lasts at least 2 years; and\n (2) operates in at 3 least suitable airports.\n (b) Duration of Daily Service.--The air traffic control\n services provided under the pilot program established under\n subsection (a) shall occur for at least 3 consecutive hours\n between 0600 and 2200 local time during each day of the pilot\n program.\n (c) Airport Selection.--The Administrator shall designate\n airports for participation in the pilot program after\n consultation with aircraft operators, manufacturers, and\n airport sponsors.\n (d) Definitions.--\n (1) Certain nextgen avionics.--The term ``certain NextGen\n avionics'' means those avionics and related software\n designated by the Administrator after consultations with\n aircraft operators and manufacturers.\n (2) Preferential basis.--The term ``preferential basis''\n means--\n (A) prioritizing aircraft equipped with certain NextGen\n avionics during a Ground Delay Program by assigning them\n fewer minutes of delay relative to other aircraft; and\n (B) sequencing aircraft equipped with certain NextGen\n avionics ahead of other aircraft in the Traffic Flow\n Management System to the maximum extent consistent with\n safety.\n (e) Sunset.--The pilot program established under subsection\n (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2023.\n (f) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which\n the pilot program terminates, the Administrator shall submit\n to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the\n House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the\n results of the pilot program.\n\n amendment no. 52 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan\n\n At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. NEXTGEN DELIVERY STUDY.\n\n (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of\n this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of\n Transportation shall initiate a study of the potential\n impacts of a significantly delayed, significantly diminished,\n or completely failed delivery of the Next Generation Air\n Transportation System modernization initiative by the Federal\n Aviation Administration, including impacts to the air traffic\n control system and the national airspace system as a whole.\n (b) Scope of Study.--In carrying out the study under\n subsection (a), the Inspector General shall assess the\n Administration's performance related to the Next Generation\n Air Transportation System modernization initiative,\n including--\n (1) the potential impacts on the operational efficiency of\n our aviation system;\n (2) an analysis of potential economic losses and stranded\n investments directly related to NextGen;\n (3) an analysis of the potential impacts to our\n international competitiveness in aviation innovation;\n (4) an analysis of the main differences that would be seen\n in our air traffic control system;\n (5) the potential impacts on the flying public, including\n potential impacts to flight times, fares, and delays in the\n air and on the ground;\n (6) the effects on supply chains reliant on air\n transportation of cargo;\n (7) the potential impacts on the long-term benefits\n promised by NextGen;\n (8) an analysis of the potential impacts on aircraft noise\n and flight paths;\n (9) the potential changes in separation standards, fuel\n consumption, flight paths, block times, and landing\n procedures or lack thereof;\n (10) the potential impacts on aircraft taxi times and\n aircraft emissions or lack thereof;\n (11) a determination of the total potential costs and\n logistical challenges of the failure of NextGen, including a\n comparison of the potential loss of the return on public and\n private sector investment related to NextGen, as compared to\n other available investment alternatives, between December 12,\n 2003 and the date of enactment of this Act; and\n (12) other matters arising in the course of the study.\n (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n initiation of the study under subsection (a), the Inspector\n General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and\n Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the\n Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n Senate a report on the results of the study.\n\n amendment no. 54 offered by ms. degette of colorado\n\n At the end of title V, add the following new section:\n\n SEC. 543. LIMITED REGULATION OF NON-FEDERALLY SPONSORED\n PROPERTY.\n\n (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), the\n Secretary of Transportation may not directly or indirectly\n regulate--\n (1) the acquisition, use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or\n disposal of land by an airport owner or operator;\n\n[[Page H3655]]\n\n (2) any non-Federal facility upon such land; or\n (3) any portion of such land or facility.\n (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any\n regulation--\n (1) ensuring--\n (A) the safe and efficient operation of aircraft and\n airports, including the safety of people and property on the\n ground;\n (B) that an airport owner or operator receives not less\n than fair market value for the lease, use, encumbrance,\n transfer, or disposal of land, any facilities on such land,\n or any portion of such land or facilities; or\n (C) that the airport pays not more than fair market value\n for the acquisition of land or facilities on such land; or\n (2) imposed with respect to--\n (A) any land or a facility acquired or modified using--\n (i) Federal financial assistance, including Federal grants;\n or\n (ii) passenger facility charge revenues collected under\n section 40117 of title 49, United States Code; or\n (B) any land conveyed to the airport, including its\n predecessors or successors, by the United States or any\n agency thereof.\n (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be\n construed to affect the applicability of section 47107(b) or\n 47133 of title 49, United States Code, to revenues generated\n by the use, lease, encumbrance, transfer, or disposal of land\n as described in subsection (a), facilities upon such land, or\n any portion of such land or facilities.\n\n amendment no. 55 offered by mr. banks of indiana\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. NATIONAL AIRMAIL MUSEUM.\n\n (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--\n (1) in 1930, commercial airmail carriers began operations\n at Smith Field in Fort Wayne, Indiana;\n (2) the United States lacks a national museum dedicated to\n airmail; and\n (3) the airmail hangar at Smith Field in Fort Wayne,\n Indiana--\n (A) will educate the public on the role of airmail in\n aviation history; and\n (B) honor the role of the hangar in the history of the\n Nation's airmail service.\n (b) Designation.--\n (1) In general.--The airmail museum located at the Smith\n Field in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is designated as the ``National\n Airmail Museum''.\n (2) Effect of designation.--The national museum designated\n by this section is not a unit of the National Park System and\n the designation of the National Airmail Museum shall not\n require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any\n purpose related to that national memorial.\n\n amendment no. 56 offered by ms. sinema of arizona\n\n At the end of title V, add the following new section:\n\n SEC. 5__. REVIEW OF APPROVAL PROCESS FOR USE OF LARGE AIR\n TANKERS AND VERY LARGE AIR TANKERS FOR WILDLAND\n FIREFIGHTING.\n\n (a) Review and Improvement of Current Approval Process.--\n The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall conduct a review of its process to approve the use of\n large air tankers and very large air tankers for wildland\n firefighting for the purpose of--\n (1) determining the current effectiveness, safety, and\n consistency of the approval process;\n (2) developing recommendations for improving the\n effectiveness, safety, and consistency of the approval\n process; and\n (3) assisting in developing standardized next-generation\n requirements for air tankers used for firefighting.\n (b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the\n date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the\n Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to Congress a\n report describing the outcome of the review conducted under\n subsection (a).\n\n amendment no. 57 offered by mr. biggs of arizona\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. REPORT ON BAGGAGE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.\n\n Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall--\n (1) study and publicize for comment a cost-benefit analysis\n to air carriers and consumers of changing the baggage\n reporting requirements of section 234.6 of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations, before the implementation of such\n requirements; and\n (2) submit a report on the findings of the cost-benefit\n analysis to the appropriate committees of the House of\n Representatives and the Senate.\n\n amendment no. 58 offered by ms. esty of connecticut\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. SUPPORTING WOMEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE AVIATION\n FIELD.\n\n (a) Advisory Board.--To encourage women and girls to enter\n the field of aviation, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall create and facilitate the Women\n in Aviation Advisory Board (referred to in this Act as the\n ``Board''), with the objective of promoting organizations and\n programs that are providing education, training, mentorship,\n outreach, and recruitment of women into the aviation\n industry.\n (b) Composition.--The Board shall consist of members whose\n diverse background and expertise allows them to contribute\n balanced points of view and ideas regarding the strategies\n and objectives set forth in subsection (f).\n (c) Selection.--Not later than 9 months after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall appoint\n members of the Board, including representatives from the\n following:\n (1) Major airlines and aerospace companies.\n (2) Nonprofit organizations within the aviation industry.\n (3) Aviation business associations.\n (4) Engineering business associations.\n (5) United States Air Force Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol.\n (6) Institutions of higher education and aviation trade\n schools.\n (d) Period of Appointment.--Members shall be appointed to\n the Board for the duration of the existence of the Board.\n (e) Compensation.--Board members shall serve without\n compensation.\n (f) Duties.--Not later than 18 months after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Board shall present a\n comprehensive plan for strategies the Administration can\n take, which include the following objectives:\n (1) Identifying industry trends that directly or indirectly\n encourage or discourage women from pursuing careers in\n aviation.\n (2) Coordinating the efforts of airline companies,\n nonprofit organizations, and aviation and engineering\n associations to facilitate support for women pursuing careers\n in aviation.\n (3) Creating opportunities to expand existing scholarship\n opportunities for women in the aviation industry.\n (4) Enhancing aviation training, mentorship, education, and\n outreach programs that are exclusive to women.\n (g) Reports.--\n (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit a report\n outlining the comprehensive plan for strategies pursuant to\n subsection (f) to--\n (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of\n the House of Representatives;\n (B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation\n of the Senate; and\n (C) the Administrator.\n (2) Availability online.--The Administrator shall make the\n report publicly available online and in print.\n (h) Sunset.--The Board shall terminate upon the submittal\n of the report pursuant to subsection (g).\n\n amendment no. 59 offered by mr. graves of missouri\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. GAO STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE\n RIGHT OF AERONAUTICAL SERVICES TO AN AIRPORT\n SPONSOR.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the General\n Accountability Office shall conduct a study to examine the\n cases in which an airport sponsor exercised an exclusive\n right (commonly known as a ``proprietary exclusive right''),\n as described in the Federal Aviation Advisory Circular 150/\n 1590-6 published on January 4, 2007.\n (b) Report.--At the end of the 2-year period under\n subsection (a), the Administrator shall submit the findings\n of such report to the Committee on Transportation and\n Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the\n Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n Senate.\n\n amendment no. 61 offered by mr. kilmer of washington\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. EVALUATION OF AIRPORT MASTER PLANS.\n\n Section 47106 of title 49, United States Code, is amended\n by adding at the end the following:\n ``(h) Evaluation of Airport Master Plans.--When evaluating\n the master plan of an airport for purposes of this\n subchapter, the Secretary shall take into account--\n ``(1) the role the airport plays with respect to medical\n emergencies and evacuations; and\n ``(2) the role the airport plays in emergency or disaster\n preparedness in the community served by the airport.''.\n\n amendment no. 62 offered by mr. panetta of california\n\n At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. STUDY REGARDING DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS.\n\n (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall evaluate alternative metrics to the\n current average day night level standard, such as the use of\n actual noise sampling and other methods, to address community\n airplane noise concerns.\n (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to\n Congress a report on the results of the study, including a\n description of the proposed structure of a recommended pilot\n program.\n\n amendment no. 64 offered by mr. hill of arkansas\n\n At the end of title V (page 267, after line 10), insert the\n following:\n\n SEC. 543. REPORT ON STATUS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAA AND\n LITTLE ROCK PORT AUTHORITY.\n\n (a) Report Requirement.--Not later than 30 days after the\n date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the\n Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to the Committee\n on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of\n Representatives\n\n[[Page H3656]]\n\n and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of\n the Senate a report on the agreement between the Federal\n Aviation Administration and the Little Rock Port Authority to\n relocate the Little Rock, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional\n Range with Collocated Tactical Air Control and Navigation\n (LIT VORTAC).\n (b) Report Contents.--The report required under subsection\n (a) shall include the following:\n (1) The status of the efforts by the Federal Aviation\n Administration to relocate the LIT VORTAC.\n (2) The long-term and short-term budget projections for the\n relocation project.\n (3) A description of and timeline for each phase of the\n relocation project.\n (4) A description of and explanation for the required\n location radius.\n (5) A description of work completed by the Federal Aviation\n Administration as of the date of the report.\n\n amendment no. 65 offered by mrs. lowey of new york\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. STUDY ON ALLERGIC REACTIONS.\n\n Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall--\n (1) study the prevalence of allergic reactions on board\n flights, whether airlines universally report reactions to the\n Federal Aviation Administration, and the frequency of first\n aid inventory checks to ensure medicine to prevent\n anaphylactic shock is in an aircraft; and\n (2) submit a report to the Committees on Transportation and\n Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce, and Appropriations of\n the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation, Health, Education, Labor, and\n Pensions, and Appropriations of the Senate.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.\nDeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en\nbloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and the\nminority. These Members put forward thoughtful amendments, and I am\npleased to be able to support moving them en bloc.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to\nthe gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis.)\n Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee\nfor including amendment No. 111 in this en bloc.\n After the tragic fires that we have seen in California, we must do\neverything possibly to protect our communities. In San Diego,\nhelicopters and air tankers had to be grounded during fire fights after\nrecreational drones were spotted in the area. These drones can pose a\nrisk to aircraft and emergency personnel flying overhead. That is why\nmy amendment would protect emergency response efforts from\ninterruptions by drones and direct the FAA to work with local agencies\nto inform the public about this issue.\n I want to thank, again, the committee for their tireless work on this\nbill.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nNorth Dakota (Mr. Cramer).\n\n {time} 1415\n\n Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the Northern Plains Unmanned Aircraft\nSystems Test Site in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is doing extensive work\nwith private industry stakeholders in advancing this very important\nemerging industry. However, the growth of the UAS industry is reliant\non receiving dedicated spectrum allocation to ensure the connection for\nbeyond visual line of sight operations.\n My amendment simply directs the FAA, the NTIA, and the FCC to submit\nto Congress a report on whether UAS operations of all sizes, at all\naltitudes, should be permitted to operate on spectrum that is\ndesignated for aviation use. It may also include recommendations of\nother licensed spectrum frequencies, such as LTE, that may be\nappropriate for flying UAS.\n I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment to advance the UAS\nindustry, and I look forward to working with stakeholders and Members\nof the Senate to take it across the finish line.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nRhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).\n Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the en bloc amendment,\nwhich includes my amendment to H.R. 4. I thank the chairman and ranking\nmember for their work on this important bill, as well as the inclusion\nof a section that would require airlines to provide consumers with a\none-page description of their rights as passengers.\n My amendment will amend this section to ensure that passengers are\nnotified of what compensation airlines provide--including rebooking\noptions, refunds, meals, and lodging--if a passenger's flight is\ndiverted.\n Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for\nincluding this and for their efforts, and urge adoption of this very\npro-consumer amendment.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nSouth Carolina (Mr. Sanford).\n Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member\nfor taking our amendment and including it in the en bloc amendment. It\nis a GAO study of revenue diversion by airports.\n I think it is important for three different reasons:\n One, it ties to the very heart of equity or fairness, the idea of all\nentities under law being treated equally. What we have now is a 35-year\ntradition wherein 20 airports have been exempted in a way that the\nother 380 primary airports in this country are not.\n Two, this is about recognizing that you can't use that which you\ndivert. In 2015 alone, more than $1 billion was diverted from airport\noperations to other, and if we are going to say we need more money,\nlet's use first some money we have, which would bring me to my final\npoint: You should always spend what you have before you go asking for\nmore. I think this is particularly important when you talk about $130\nbillion of need within the airport system; that you simply spend within\nthe system first before you go to the taxpayer asking for yet more.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nRhode Island (Mr. Langevin).\n Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc package, which\nincludes my amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act relating to air\npassengers with disabilities. I also want to thank the chairman and\nranking member for including an air passengers with disabilities bill\nof rights in the manager's amendment.\n The Air Carrier Access Act was enacted in 1986 to prohibit\ndiscrimination based on disability in air travel. Despite progress,\ntravelers with disabilities still encounter significant barriers. My\namendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to review and, if\nnecessary, revise regulations issued under the act. In particular, it\nfocuses on providing timelier and more effective assistance to people\nwith disabilities, including by improving hands-on training for airline\npersonnel.\n Inadequate assistance for people with disabilities can lead to\nunacceptable delays, missed flights, and even passenger injuries. We\ncan and must do better. Mr. Chairman, I have traveled all over the\nworld, and I have dealt with those airlines who do things the right way\nand treat people with disabilities with respect and have good processes\nin place and other airlines that need more improvement and need to work\nharder at this.\n These amendments and this bill will help us to get there. I thank the\nchairman and the ranking member for their hard work.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom Indiana (Mr. Banks).\n Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster\nand my colleagues for their work on this underlying legislation.\n My amendment is simple. It would designate the hangar at Smith\nAirfield in Ft. Wayne, in my district, as the National Airmail Museum.\nCurrently, there is no such museum with this particular designation. I\nwant to also make clear that my amendment prohibits any Federal funding\nto support this important initiative for the community. It is a zero-\ncost amendment.\n The significance of hangar number 2, which is the only example of\nClark W. Smith's patented carousel design, makes it a fine fit for this\ndesignation. In 1911, the United States Postal Service began airmail\ndelivery, and in 1930,\n\n[[Page H3657]]\n\ncommercial airmail service came to Smith Airfield.\n Mr. Chairman, this recognition would be a great addition to my\ncommunity and a vital tool to educate the American people on the\nsignificant role airmail played in the evolution of aviation.\nFurthermore, such recognition would propel the ongoing initiative to\npreserve and share the history of airmail.\n Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the\nen bloc amendment and support the preservation of airmail history.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArizona (Mr. O'Halleran).\n Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to thank\nthe chairman and the ranking member for their support of my\ncommonsense, bipartisan amendment that strengthens our commitment to\nrural America.\n\n The Essential Air Service is a critical link for residents and\nbusinesses in small and rural communities by linking service to hub\nairports in 36 States. EAS serves as an important economic tool in\nlocal communities.\n Page and Show Low, Arizona, in my district, are two communities that\nbenefit from EAS, which allows businesses there to access larger\nmarkets and compete on a level playing field. My amendment simply\nrequires the comptroller general to analyze the impact any proposed\nreforms to EAS it reports to Congress would have on the local\ncommunities that depend on the program.\n At a time when rural America is still recovering from economic\nrecession, we should be working together to revitalize communities and\ncreate jobs. EAS is a vital resource in many of these communities\nacross America, and we must continue to protect it. I thank Congressman\n Don Young for cosponsoring this amendment and being a stalwart\nchampion for EAS.\n Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for including it in their en bloc\npackage.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Panetta).\n Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member DeFazio and\nChairman Shuster. Our families have some history, but I also appreciate\nyour friendship and leadership on this issue.\n Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4. My\namendment will ensure that the FAA studies alternative ways to measure\nsound over a period of time, such as actual noise sampling, to properly\ncapture the experience of those on the ground.\n I offer this amendment for my constituents in Carmel Valley to\nCapitola to Santa Cruz. Those are people who lived in communities that\nwere once quiet until the FAA NextGen changed the routes over their\nhouses back in 2015. Their health, their sleep, their pets, their well-\nbeing were all affected by the sound of jet engines, air brakes, and\nlanding gear.\n I appreciate the work that FAA has done to get us close to quieter\nskies in my community, as well as the Select Committee on these issues\nand their work with the FAA. However, like many Members who have\ndistricts who have faced these types of airplane noise concerns, I\nbelieve that the existing day-night level 65-decibel standard is out of\ndate, out of touch, and inadequate to measure the amount of sound\npollution impacting our communities.\n My amendment would ensure not just alternative ways, but proper ways\nto study noise sampling. I appreciate the committee for including this\namendment en bloc.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nArizona (Mr. Biggs).\n Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and simply\nrequires the Department of Transportation to provide a cost-benefit\nanalysis to Congress before moving forward with changes to what is\ncommonly referred to as the mishandled baggage reporting rule. If DOT\nwants to alter a sensible reporting requirement that has been in place\nfor decades, it should, at the very least, be asked to justify it with\na cost-benefit analysis.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the\nen bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of this En Bloc\namendment package, which contains two of my amendments to the FAA\nReauthorization Act of 2018.\n It is no secret our Air Traffic Control system is antiquated. It\nrelies on old technology and old techniques. It is a safe system, but\nit is ineffective and could be significantly improved.\n Despite billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent over the past\n30 years to make it better, the system still largely relies on World\nWar II era radar technology.\n The Government Accountability Office and the Department of\nTransportation Inspector General have both said the FAA lags massively\nbehind in bringing Air Traffic Control into the 21st Century. NextGen--\nthe common name for these modernization efforts--has cost well over\nseven billion dollars already with no implementation date--still.\n We all know the promise that Air Traffic Control modernization holds,\nbut we also know NextGen has taken too long and cost too much money to\nfully implement.\n My amendments today will help expedite full NextGen deployment and\nget taxpayers the return on investment they deserve and expect.\n My first amendment to H.R. 4 would establish a pilot program to\ndemonstrate the full promise of NextGen technologies. This pilot\nprogram could also show policy makers and the Federal Aviation\nAdministration where we still have room for improvement in NextGen.\n There are some airports and some planes that have begun to use the\nnewest technologies. After this many years and this many dollars spent,\nit certainly makes sense that would be the case.\n My amendment today would create a limited pilot program, with a\nsunset date and a reporting requirement, for planes and airports with\nthe latest NextGen technologies.\n This pilot program would allow for limited enhanced access for planes\nwith the latest technology, at a limited number of airports.\n The parameters for the pilot program would be developed by the\nFederal Aviation Administration after consultations with aircraft\noperators, manufacturers, and airport sponsors.\n Here's what we can find out with such a program: How good can a fully\nimplemented NextGen be? How will pilots and airports utilize the\nsystem? Where are areas that need more attention? How much more\ninvestment is necessary, and what will be the return on that\ninvestment?\n These are all questions that make sense to ask, and have been asked.\nThis amendment and this pilot program takes those questions and creates\nan opportunity that will show policy makers and the public real-world\nand tangible--and measurable--results.\n To recap, my first amendment creates a limited pilot program to\ndemonstrate what a fully implemented NextGen system could look like. It\nhas an end date, so it's not an open-ended program. It requires the FAA\nto report to Congress once the pilot program is ended. After reviewing\nthe results, policy makers and the FAA would have greater knowledge\nabout how best to finish NextGen implementation, and how to run a fully\nmodernized Air Traffic Control system.\n My second amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, paired\nwith the first one, will further ensure Air Traffic Control\nmodernization stays on track.\n Today's Manager's Amendment from Chairman Shuster requires the FAA to\ntell Congress and the public how much time, effort, and money has gone\nin to NextGen to date, and what the returns on that investment are so\nfar. It also requires the DOT IG to examine that report from the FAA\nfor accuracy and completeness.\n My second amendment today builds upon these accountability measures\nput forward by Chairman Shuster.\n My amendment requires the Inspector General of the Department of\nTransportation to study the potential impacts of a significantly\ndelayed, significantly diminished, or completely failed delivery of the\nNextGen modernization initiative. My amendment is forward looking, and\nhelps hold the FAA accountable to taxpayers.\n This examination by the IG would ask some very straightforward but\nvery important questions.\n Questions like what are the potential impacts on the operational\nefficiency of our aviation system without NextGen; how would a failed\nNextGen delivery impact our international competiveness; what would be\nthe impact on the flying public; what would be the overall economic\nimpact; how would it effect stakeholder use of the system; and more.\nThese are all questions that we need answers for.\n By having this information, Congress and the American people will\nknow how much is at stake and where we need to make adjustments.\nNextGen is an opportunity, but if that\n\n[[Page H3658]]\n\nopportunity isn't fully realized, investments to date will be for\nnaught, and all the benefits of a fully modernized Air Traffic Control\nsystem will not be realized. Failure is not an option, and Congress\nneeds to do everything in our power to keep the FAA on track.\n In sum, my amendment makes the DOT IG do a deep dive into the worst\ncase scenarios for NextGen implementation. By having these answers,\nCongress and the taxpayers will have a full picture of the need to\nexpedite Air Traffic Control modernization, and what more needs to be\ndone to get our aviation system in to the 21st Century.\n I am pleased both of my amendments are included in the En Bloc\npackage, because I believe they will expedite NextGen deployment and\nwill help modernize our Air Traffic Control systems.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered\nby the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n The en bloc amendments were agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title IV, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 6__. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN FLIGHTS BY STAGE 2\n AIRPLANES.\n\n (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 47534 of title 49,\n United States Code, not late than 180 days after the date of\n the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall initiate a pilot program to\n permit the operator of a Stage 2 airplane to operate that\n airplane in revenue and nonrevenue service into medium hub\n airports or nonhub airports if--\n (1) the airport--\n (A) is certified under part 139 of 14, Code of Federal\n Regulations;\n (B) has a runway that--\n (i) is longer than 8,000 feet and not less than 200 feet\n wide; and\n (ii) is load bearing with a pavement classification number\n of not less than 38;\n (C) has a maintenance facility with a maintenance\n certificate issued under part 145 of such title; and\n (D) certifies annually to the Administrator that the\n airport intends to continue participating in the pilot\n program;\n (2) the operator of the Stage 2 airplane operates not more\n than 10 flights per month using that airplane; and\n (3) revenue flights will be limited to flights transporting\n specific and necessary equipment to maintain or improve the\n vital industry of small rural communities.\n (b) Termination.--The regulations required by subsection\n (a) shall terminate on the earlier of--\n (1) the date that is 10 years after the date of the\n enactment of the Act; or\n (2) the date on which the Administrator determines that no\n Stage 2 airplane remain in service.\n (c) Definitions.--In this section:\n (1) Medium hub airport; nonhub aiport.--The terms ``medium\n hub airport'' and ``nonhub airport'' have the meanings given\n those terms in section 40102 of the title 49, United States\n Code.\n (2) Stage 2 airplane.--The term ``Stage 2 airplane'' has\n the meaning given that term in section 91.851 of title 14,\n Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before\n the date of the enactment of this Act).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.\n Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple.\nIf adopted, it would require the administrator of the Federal Aviation\nAdministration to initiate a 10-year pilot program to permit operators\nof State 2 airplanes to conduct operations in medium-hub or non-hub\nairports.\n This pilot program would additionally require that participating\nairports certify each year that they wish to remain in the program. The\nwhole purpose of my amendment is to allow rural airports that are\nlocated outside of more heavily populated areas to have the ability to\nconduct commercial and noncommercial activities that currently are not\nallowed.\n Mr. Chairman, this is a pro-business and commonsense amendment, and I\nurge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it and the\npassage of Chairman Shuster's underlying bill.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time.\n We have already heard a lot today about noise complaints, and State 2\nare very noisy aircraft. They were phased out of revenue service about\n15 years ago. They are noisy. They consume more fuel. And I am not\nquite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what\nthis pilot program would look like. So I have a number of concerns\nabout the amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to\nreclaim my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman\nfrom Louisiana?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.\n Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may\nconsume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Higgins for yielding.\n I believe this amendment that initiates a pilot program allows small\nnumbers of these aircraft to land in the United States for maintenance\nservices. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and I want\nto stress the next point, that no community would have these older\naircraft land at their airports unless they certify annually that they\nare willing to accept them.\n I think the gentleman is trying to create jobs in a district, in a\nrural area, that the noise will not affect and that will put\nhardworking Louisianans to work fixing these planes that still operate\naround the Caribbean.\n Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this\namendment, and I respect my colleague's concerns. I have communicated\nthoroughly with my constituents in rural areas that would benefit from\nthis amendment and allow the further use of rural airports without\ninterfering with neighborhoods. It has broad support, my friend, across\nthe communities that I represent, and I urge my colleague to reconsider\nand to support my amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n {time} 1430\n\n Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. DeFazio\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 42.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 214, strike lines 11 through 15.\n Page 215, beginning on line 13, strike ``Pursuant to\n section 828 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012\n (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), not'' and insert ``Not''.\n Page 216, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the\n following:\n (1) ICAO technical instructions.--The term ``ICAO Technical\n Instructions'' means the International Civil Aviation\n Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of\n Dangerous Goods by Air (as amended, including any amendments\n adopted after the date of enactment of this Act).\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. ___. UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP.\n\n Section 828 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012\n (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), and the item relating to such section\n in the table of contents of such Act, is repealed.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, years ago, people used to refer to the\ntombstone mentality at the FAA, with a lack of oversight where fatal\naccidents happened, loss of rudder control and other things like that\nthat could have been prevented with proper maintenance. We have moved\nbeyond that point to a much more engaged and active FAA, except\nCongress has imposed a tombstone mentality on the FAA.\n At the behest of Chinese battery manufacturers and large firms in the\n\n[[Page H3659]]\n\nU.S. who utilize those batteries, an amendment was placed into a\nprevious bill that prohibits the FAA from exercising its judgment about\nthe safety of the carriage of lithium batteries on airplanes. Instead,\nwe are bound to an international convention, the ICAO, which is very\nresponsive to third-world countries and China and others in terms of\nseeking lowest common denominator regulation of anything that they can.\n Normally, we lead the world. Normally, we would say: No, get this\nstuff off aircraft. We have lost two 747s--two 747s. They were cargo\naircraft. They went down because of lithium batteries. It only takes a\nvery few lithium batteries.\n Do we have the lithium battery picture?\n This is packaging of lithium batteries. This is what happens with\nthose lithium batteries if just one overheats and starts a spontaneous\nreaction--again, catastrophic to the aircraft.\n Now we are temporarily under an ICAO rule that says that they should\nnot be carried in passenger aircraft, but they are still being\nregularly carried in the holds of cargo aircraft.\n Now, we have oceans. We have freighters. They have containers. You\ncould plan ahead.\n Let's say 2 months from now we are going to say these things don't go\nin the air anymore because, okay, yeah, you are right; there are only a\ncouple of pilots who are going to lose their lives. It kind of concerns\nme. Well, what happens if the 747 comes down in a populated area? Oops,\na lot more people lose their lives.\n So you can say 2 months from now they are not going to be on aircraft\nanymore and the industry can set up a new supply chain of putting these\nthings in containers and shipping them across the ocean in a way that\nwill not endanger people on the ground and, in all probability, will\nnot lead to fatalities if there were an uncontained spontaneous\nignition of these batteries.\n Even worse, this administration has designated that the--did you ever\nhear of this?--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\nPHMSA, which is a little tiny, pretty dysfunctional agency, will take\nover the authority for the regulation and the negotiation of the\nregulation of lithium batteries from the FAA.\n What does PHMSA, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, know about aviation? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Nothing.\n So I guess, again, we are seeing the clout of the manufacturers and\nthe Chinese battery manufacturers. Theoretically, they are safer now\nbecause they can only be charged to 30 percent, but often the Chinese\njust kind of forget to do it that way and put them on the planes\nanyway.\n So this is an accident waiting to happen. It is an imposition of a\ntombstone mentality on the FAA by Congress. It says, until there is\nanother proven crash due to lithium batteries, we can't regulate.\n Come on. Really? Another proven crash, we can't regulate?\n Let's give the FAA the authority to regulate these batteries. They\ncould probably develop containers, maybe, that they could go in and\nstill be on aircraft, but there are other ways of moving these\nbatteries in world commerce.\n So I would urge adoption of my amendment and the repeal of the\ntombstone mentality mandate on the FAA.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The amendment\nwould repeal existing law that has been in place since 2012. The law\ngenerally prevents DOT from adopting lithium battery regulations that\nare not harmonized with international standards.\n Existing law represents a balanced approach that allows DOT to issue\nregulations that exceed international requirements if the Secretary has\ncredible evidence that lithium batteries would substantially contribute\nto onboard fires.\n Billions of lithium batteries and lithium-battery containing products\nare shipped safely by air every year. Shipments by air into the U.S. in\n2017 were valued at approximately $120 billion, which also means there\nare thousands of jobs attached to these.\n Aviation is a global industry, and it is very important there not be\na patchwork of regulations. The international body studying the global\nstandards for lithium battery transport requirements has been very\nactive on the issue, and the United States has been centrally involved.\nIn reality, the international effort on lithium batteries has been\nahead of the DOT in terms of implementing requirements.\n Additionally, H.R. 4 continues to focus on safely transporting the\nproducts that almost all Americans rely on. It assures expert\nparticipation in all panels and working groups of international test or\nstandard-setting organizations in which the United States participates.\nIt avoids creating a burdensome patchwork of regulations, provides the\nSecretary of Transportation with the authority to deal with this, and\ncreates a Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee to ensure that\nthe best and safest policy positions are developed and synchronized in\nthe U.S.\n This amendment also would put exclusive powers to represent the\nUnited States internationally on transport issues in the hands of the\nFAA, despite hazardous materials transportation affecting all modes of\ntransportation.\n\n Currently, the Secretary of Transportation is statutorily directed to\nrepresent the United States in international forums for transporting\nhazardous materials in international commerce. It is the Secretary's\ndiscretion to delegate this authority to her or his choice of agencies.\nDiscretion appropriately rests with the Secretary.\n Experts agree that uniform international transportation regulation is\na key to safety, so I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Chairman, this doesn't tell the FAA nor mandate the FAA to\nregulate lithium batteries. It would allow the status quo, which means\nthe FAA would have the authority to determine whether they represent an\ninordinate risk and there should be strictures put upon their\ntransport, whether it is containers or other strictures, as opposed to\nfollowing the lowest common denominator international organization.\n You know, airplane manufacturers see the risk. According to the\nInternational Coordination Council for Aerospace Industries\nAssociation, which includes Boeing and Airbus, they say: ``Existing\ncargo compartment fire protection systems . . . are unable to suppress\nor extinguish a fire involving significant quantities of lithium\nbatteries . . . . Therefore, continuing to allow the carriage of\nlithium batteries within today's transport category aircraft cargo\ncompartments is an unacceptable risk to the air transport industry.''\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's passion on\nthis issue.\n I would, again, say, having a system that is harmonized throughout\nthe world is critical. ICAO has already said in their standard that\nthey recommend that we don't carry them on passenger aircraft, so our\nindustry in America has done that.\n Further, the companies that ship cargo--UPS, FedEx--are working, and\nI have seen what they have done to make sure that the crews of cargo\nplanes are protected. Again, the private industry understands this, and\nthey are moving forward to develop these systems that contain it or\nsuppression systems.\n So, again, I believe that the best way forward is to, again,\nharmonize with the rest of the world and continue to ship billions of\ndollars of these batteries safely every year. Again, I urge my\ncolleagues to not support this amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.\n\n[[Page H3660]]\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will\nbe postponed.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 44 will\nnot be offered.\n\n Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Cohen\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, to affirm what the chairman already knows, I\nhave an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. ACCESS OF AIR CARRIERS TO INFORMATION ABOUT\n APPLICANTS TO BE PILOTS FROM NATIONAL DRIVER\n REGISTER.\n\n Section 30305(b)(8) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended to read as follows:\n ``(8)(A) An individual who is seeking employment by an air\n carrier as a pilot may request the chief driver licensing\n official of a State to provide information about the\n individual under subsection (a) of this section to the\n prospective employer of the individual, the authorized agent\n of the prospective employer, or the Secretary of\n Transportation.\n ``(B) An air carrier that is the prospective employer of an\n individual described in subparagraph (A), or an authorized\n agent of such an air carrier, may request and receive\n information about that individual from the National Driver\n Register through an organization approved by the Secretary\n for purposes of requesting, receiving, and transmitting such\n information directly to the prospective employer of such an\n individual or the authorized agent of the prospective\n employer.\n ``(C) Information may not be obtained from the National\n Driver Register under this paragraph if the information was\n entered in the Register more than 5 years before the request\n unless the information is about a revocation or suspension\n still in effect on the date of the request.''.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.\n\n Modification to Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Cohen\n\n Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.\n46 printed in part A of House Report 115-650 be modified by the form I\nhave placed at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.\n The Clerk read as follows:\n Modification to amendment No. 46 printed in part A of House Report\n115-650 offered by Mr. Cohen:\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. ACCESS OF AIR CARRIERS TO INFORMATION ABOUT\n APPLICANTS TO BE PILOTS FROM NATIONAL DRIVER\n REGISTER.\n\n Section 30305(b)(8) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended to read as follows:\n ``(8)(A) An individual who is seeking employment by an air\n carrier as a pilot may request the chief driver licensing\n official of a State to provide information about the\n individual under subsection (a) of this section to the\n prospective employer of the individual, the authorized agent\n of the prospective employer, or the Secretary of\n Transportation.\n ``(B) An air carrier that is the prospective employer of an\n individual described in subparagraph (A), or an authorized\n agent of such an air carrier, may request and receive\n information about that individual from the National Driver\n Register through an organization approved by the Secretary\n for purposes of requesting, receiving, and transmitting such\n information directly to the prospective employer of such an\n individual or the authorized agent of the prospective\n employer. A request for information shall be made in\n accordance with the requirements of section 44703(h)(2).\n ``(C) Information may not be obtained from the National\n Driver Register under this paragraph if the information was\n entered in the Register more than 5 years before the request\n unless the information is about a revocation or suspension\n still in effect on the date of the request.''.\n\n Mr. COHEN (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent\nthat we not listen to any more of the modification but continue on with\ndebate.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman\nfrom Tennessee?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the\ngentleman from Tennessee?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.\n Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan,\nbicameral amendment, offered with my colleague on the Aviation\nSubcommittee, Mr. Woodall, and spearheaded in the Senate by former\nmilitary pilot, mother, and great Member, Senator Tammy Duckworth of\nIllinois, and Senator Perdue.\n This amendment is common sense and ensures the safety of the flying\npublic. Our bipartisan amendment streamlines an onerous process that\nhas led to unintended burdens and delays on the State Department of\nMotor Vehicles across the country and delays in getting prospective\npilots eligible for employment.\n To be clear, this amendment does nothing to remove protections to\npilots and their privacy already enshrined in Federal law.\n In 1996, Congress passed the Pilot Records Improvement Act, which\nmandated the airlines obtain driving records of all prospective pilot\nemployees from the National Driver Registry. An unintended consequence\ncame about requiring only the chief State licensing official could\napprove such request. This has caused delays at DMVs, and currently,\nmost employees have to request these records from Missouri, since they\nare the sole State still willing to access the National Driver Registry\nfor requests from all parties. That is not what was intended, and it\nrequires a simple and technical fix that this amendment does bring\nabout.\n That 1996 law also clearly and strictly stipulated the written\nconsent that airlines require from pilots before obtaining their\nrecords and spells out strict guidelines on the privacy and use of that\ninformation. They cannot sell that information.\n Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and ask that it be voted on and\napproved, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the\namendment, even though I am not opposed to it.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania\nis recognized for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this\namendment.\n This amendment would streamline the process for airlines to obtain\ninformation from the National Driver Registry for airline pilots\nseeking employment.\n I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I urge all of\nmy colleagues to support this amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take my remaining time\nto thank Mr. Shuster for his work on this bill, and Mr. DeFazio for his\nwork, too. They did bring about an excellent bill that I am proud to\nsupport.\n I have been proud to be a member of the committee with Mr. Shuster as\nthe chair. He has done an outstanding job and done his father's memory\nas a great chairman even greater honor.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The question is on the amendment, as\nmodified, offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).\n The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.\n\n {time} 1445\n\n Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Burgess\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I\nrise to speak in support of the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Add at the end of title V the following:\n\n SEC. 543. PROHIBITION REGARDING WEAPONS.\n\n (a) In General.--Unless authorized by the Administrator of\n the Federal Aviation Administration, a person may not operate\n an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system that is\n equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon.\n (b) Dangerous Weapon Defined.--In this section, the term\n ``dangerous weapon'' has the meaning given that term in\n section 930(g)(2) of title 18, United States Code.\n (c) Penalty.--A person who violates this section is liable\n to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not\n more than $25,000 for each violation.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\n\n[[Page H3661]]\n\nfrom Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.\n Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, today, I offer an amendment to prevent a\nperson from operating an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft\nsystem in the national airspace if that aircraft is equipped or armed\nwith a dangerous weapon, unless that equipment is authorized by the\nAdministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I have introduced\nthis important language as the No Armed Drones Act since the 112th\nCongress.\n In 2015, an 18-year-old in Connecticut built a multirotor drone\nmounted with a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun capable of firing live\nammunition while flying. This individual demonstrated how easy it was\nfor a private citizen to create and operate an armed drone in his\nYouTube video entitled ``Flying Gun.''\n Police did not arrest this person, saying that no violation of law\nhad occurred. According to the then-chief of police in Clinton,\nConnecticut, where the drone video was made, this appeared to be a case\nof technology surpassing current legislation.\n In response to this and other drone incidents, government agencies\nare developing counter-drone technology to redirect rogue drones.\nPolice say their greatest fear, with the increase in the use of\nrecreational drones, is their weaponization. In addition, North Dakota\nhas allowed law enforcement to fly drones armed with ``less than\nlethal'' weapons since 2015, something many in law enforcement say they\nare not comfortable doing.\n The use of drones for regular business operations is increasing, and\nthat is a good thing. Farmers use drones to inspect their crops,\nsecurity companies use drones to conduct surveillance over guarded\nproperties, home repair companies use drones to assess damage on\nstructures, and drones are even beginning to be used for home delivery\nservices. While these abilities may prove convenient to our daily\nlives, we must not let the civilian applications of drone technology\nadvance to weaponization.\n Outside of the United States, terrorist groups in the Middle East\nhave used small drones as weapons. There is real concern that homegrown\nextremists in the United States could do the same thing. It is\nimperative that we take steps to protect the public before death by\narmed drone becomes a headline.\n There is no statute in the United States Code that affirmatively\nstates that an unmanned aircraft system may not be used in the national\nairspace as a weapon. This amendment today protects the public from\ndrones that have been weaponized, both lethal and nonlethal, by private\ncitizens by preventing a person from flying an armed drone in the\nnational airspace without FAA authorization. A person who violates this\nrequirement may be fined a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation\nunder the statute.\n I offer this language as an amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act\nof 2018 in order to align current legislation with available\ntechnology. It is time we take a preemptive, rather than a reactive,\nstep to protect all Americans.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even\nthough I am not opposed to it.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is\nrecognized for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This seems very\ncommonsense to me.\n Earlier in the en bloc, my amendment was adopted, which would give\nthe FAA authority to begin regulation of the small drones, which\ncurrently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by Congress.\n If this passes, that will allow the FAA, if my amendment stands in\nconference, to adopt this commonsense rule. Should my amendment not be\nadopted in conference with the Senate, and we pass this, the FAA would\nnot have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they\nare prohibited from regulating them. Hopefully, both things will occur.\n Mr. Chairman, I recommend adoption of this amendment, and I yield\nback the balance of my time.\n Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I\nyield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Perlmutter\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. HELICOPTER FUEL SYSTEM SAFETY.\n\n (a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States\n Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:\n\n ``Sec. 44738. Helicopter fuel system safety\n\n ``(a) Prohibition.--\n ``(1) In general.--A person may not operate a covered\n rotorcraft in United States airspace unless the design of the\n rotorcraft is certified by the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration to--\n ``(A) comply with the requirements applicable to the\n category of the rotorcraft under paragraphs (1), (2), (3),\n (5), and (6) of section 27.952(a), section 27.952(c), section\n 27.952(f), section 27.952(g), section 27.963(g) (but allowing\n for a minimum puncture force of 250 pounds if successfully\n drop tested in-structure), and section 27.975(b) or\n paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of section 29.952(a),\n section 29.952(c), section 29.952(f), section\n 29.952(g),section 29.963(b) (but allowing for a minimum\n puncture force of 250 pounds if successfully drop tested in-\n structure), and 29.975(a)(7) of title 14, Code of Federal\n Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment; or\n ``(B) employ other means acceptable to the Administrator to\n provide an equivalent level of fuel system crash resistance.\n ``(2) Covered rotorcraft defined.--In this subsection, the\n term `covered rotorcraft' means a rotorcraft not otherwise\n required to comply with section 27.952, section 27.963, and\n section 27.975, or section 29.952, section 29.963, and\n section 29.975 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as in\n effect on the date of enactment for which manufacture was\n completed, as determined by the Administrator, on or after\n the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of\n this section.\n ``(b) Administrative Provisions.--The Administrator shall--\n ``(1) expedite the certification and validation of United\n States and foreign type designs and retrofit kits that\n improve fuel system crashworthiness; and\n ``(2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment\n of this section, and periodically thereafter, issue a\n bulletin to--\n ``(A) inform rotorcraft owners and operators of available\n modifications to improve fuel system crashworthiness; and\n ``(B) urge that such modifications be installed as soon as\n practicable.\n ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be\n construed to affect the operation of a rotorcraft by the\n Department of Defense.''.\n (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 447 of\n title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end\n the following:\n\n``44738. Helicopter fuel system safety.''.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.\n Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.\n First, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio\nfor working with me and Mr. Polis, listening to our concerns, and I\nappreciate their assistance.\n I rise today to offer an amendment we have been working on for almost\n3 years, which is designed to improve helicopter fuel system safety for\nnewly manufactured helicopters.\n As the chairman knows, on July 3, 2015, a Flight for Life air\nambulance helicopter took off in Frisco, Colorado. Just seconds later,\nthe helicopter crashed in a parking lot next to the helipad. After\nimpact, gasoline began to leak from the helicopter and a fire quickly\nerupted trapping the crew. The crash itself was largely survivable, but\nthe post-crash fire contributed to the death of the pilot, Patrick\nMahany, and severely burned the two flight nurses--Dave Repsher and\nMatthew Bowe. One of the flight nurses suffered burns on more than 90\npercent of his body.\n As we began learning what happened in Frisco, we discovered that a\n1994\n\n[[Page H3662]]\n\nFAA rulemaking required all newly certified helicopter designs to\nincorporate crash resistant fuel systems. The problem is that\nhelicopter designs are certified once and then can be manufactured for\nyears. So new helicopters, like the 1-year-old helicopter which crashed\nin Frisco, Colorado, are being built to a now unsafe design from the\n1970s.\n Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. Since that 1994 rulemaking, there have\nbeen more than 175 post-crash fires and at least 80 deaths. We can do\nbetter, and we must do better.\n Since 2015, the FAA has finally started to address the issue. They\nconvened the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group and tasked\nthem with determining what requirements to place on newly manufactured\nhelicopters moving forward. That working group submitted their final\nreport last month and made evidence-based recommendations about what\nsafety features should be required.\n My amendment today implements those recommendations of the working\ngroup by requiring all newly manufactured helicopters to be built with\nsafer fuel systems within 18 months. We have known about this problem\nfor decades, and it is past time we close the loophole from 1994 and\nimprove the safety of these helicopters.\n Two people deserve special thanks: Patrick Mahany's wife, Karen, for\nher tireless advocacy for safer helicopters; and Chris Vanderveen, from\nKUSA-Channel 9, for his diligent reporting about the dangers of these\nfragile and outdated fuel systems.\n I would also like to thank Air Methods, the Air Medical Operators\nAssociation, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, and\nHelicopter Association International for working with me and my staff.\n Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support from Air\nMethods, Helicopter Association International, and Air Medical\nOperators Association.\n\n Air Methods,\n\n Greenwood Village, CO, April 24, 2018.\n Hon. Ed Perlmutter,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Representative Perlmutter: As the House of\n Representatives prepares to consider HR. 4, the Federal\n Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, on\n behalf of Air Methods, I want to thank you for your\n dedication and attention to aviation safety, and in\n particular your tireless efforts to make helicopter fuel\n systems safer by equipping them with crash resistant fuel\n systems (CRFS).\n At Air Methods, safety is our top priority. We have worked\n continuously to strengthen our practices, instill a culture\n of safety throughout our organization, and contribute to\n industry-wide advances in aviation safety. As part of Air\n Methods' dedication to the safety of its crews and patients,\n we have committed to retrofitting our Airbus H125 and H130\n (formally known as EC130) fleet with the updated CRFS.\n As you may know, in 2015 we partnered with Vector Aerospace\n to conduct CRFS testing and seek certification for a crash\n resistant fuel system for all Airbus single-engine\n helicopters we operate. The first H125 with the new system\n arrived at Air Methods' headquarters in Denver, CO on Dec.\n 30, 2017, following the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)\n supplemental type certificate approval. To date, Air Methods\n has received and completed the installation of 14 CRFS in our\n fleet. The Company intends to roll out an entire fleet of\n retrofitted Airbus H125 and H130 over the next two years.\n We believe the CRFS program is critical to the air medical\n transportation industry and have been advocating for and\n supporting CRFS for several years. We look forward to\n continuing to work together with you and other legislators to\n support efforts to improve industry-wide safety standards in\n aviation safety and ensure the safety of those who fly with\n us.\n Thank you for your leadership and willingness to engage Air\n Methods while working toward ensuring safety for our patients\n and crews. We look forward to working alongside you and your\n office to promote aviation safety.\n Sincerely,\n\n Mr. Aaron Todd,\n\n Chief Executive Officer,\n Air Methods Corporation.\n ____\n\n HAI Statement on Representative Perlmutter's Amendment\n\n Washington, DC, April 25, 2018.--Helicopter Association\n International (HAI) commends Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) for\n his collaborative efforts in drafting Amendment 29 to improve\n helicopter fuel system safety.\n Amendment 29 implements recommendations from the FAA\n Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group to require all\n newly manufactured helicopters to meet certain standards to\n improve the crash resistance of helicopter fuel systems\n within 18 months.\n HAI appreciates Rep. Perlmutter's work in addressing this\n important safety issue and for his commitment to work so\n closely with the working group's recommendations. As an\n advocate for safety in the helicopter industry, HAI has been\n an active participant in the FAA Rotorcraft Occupant\n Protection Working Group and is committed to the safety\n improvements the group's recommendation has brought before\n the industry.\n HAI is the professional trade association for the civil\n helicopter industry. HAI's 1,500 plus organizational members\n and 1,800 individual members operate more than 4,500\n helicopters approximately 2.3 million flight hours each year\n in 73 nations. HAI is dedicated to the promotion of the\n helicopter as a safe, effective business tool and to the\n advancement of the international helicopter community.\n ____\n\n Air Medical Operators Association,\n\n Alexandria, VA, April 24, 2018.\n Hon. Ed Perlmutter,\n House of Representatives,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Congressman Perlmutter: On behalf of the Air Medical\n Operators Association (AMOA), I am writing today to express\n our support for your proposed amendment on ``Helicopter Fuel\n System Safety''. This amendment would codify the\n recommendations of the FAA's Rotorcraft Occupant Protection\n Working Group on Crash Resistant Fuel Systems (CRFS).\n Since its founding in 2009, AMOA and its member companies\n have committed to an ongoing series of safety enhancements\n and investments. Our efforts include actions to comply with\n the FAA's Helicopter Air Ambulance rule, such as installing\n Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS) and\n Flight Data Monitoring Systems (FDMS), and establishing\n Operations Control Centers (OCC). AMOA member companies have\n also gone above and beyond regulatory requirements by\n undertaking voluntary safety initiatives, including the use\n of Night Vision Goggles (NVGs).\n In November, 2015, AMOA announced a commitment to the\n installation of CRFS in all new aircraft and equipping\n current aircraft with CRFS as those products become\n available. We also supported the inclusion of Section 2105 of\n the ``FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016'',\n which directed the FAA to ``evaluate and update, as\n necessary, standards for crash-resistant fuel systems for\n civilian rotorcraft''.\n We are pleased to support your amendment as another\n positive step in the continuous effort to improve the safety\n of the life-saving transportation provided by AMOA's member\n companies. AMOA urges the House to adopt your amendment.\n Thank you for your work on this very important issue.\n Sincerely,\n\n Sally Veith,\n\n Executive Director,\n Air Medical Operators Association.\n\n Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking\nMember DeFazio for their help through this process.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the\namendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania\nis recognized for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering his\namendment.\n This amendment implements critical recommendations from the FAA's\nRotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group. Specifically the\namendment will require newly manufactured helicopters meet specific\nsafety standards to prevent post-crash fires from occurring.\n In many cases, fatal helicopter accidents are due to post-crash fires\nrather than the impact itself. Equipping these new helicopters with\ncrash resistant fuel systems is absolutely critical in preventing\nthermal injuries and fatalities.\n I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership and persistence.\nWhen I say persistence, the gentleman has been working on this issue\nfor a number of years, so, again, I congratulate him for that effort.\n Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment,\nand I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to\nanother gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).\n Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Perlmutter. I\nam proud to join him in offering this amendment, which comes in a\ndirect response to a tragedy that occurred in the district I am honored\nto represent, and countless other tragedies across the country.\n\n[[Page H3663]]\n\n As Representative Perlmutter mentioned, back in 2015, there was a\nFlight for Life crash in Frisco, Colorado. The pilot, Patrick Mahany,\ndied, and one person on board is still in the recovery process.\n The death and damage was caused not directly from the crash, but from\nthe lack of a crash resistant fuel system that is already mandated in\nmilitary helicopters, but, for some ridiculous reason, it is not\nmandated in civilian aircraft like the Flight for Life helicopter.\n I want to thank the widow of Patrick, Karen Mahany, for keeping this\nissue in front and foremost. I know how difficult it must be to go\nthrough a personal mourning process, but then to look above that and\nsay: Let's stop this kind of tragedy from affecting other families.\nThat is what Karen has done by putting herself out there.\n I am honored to be supportive of this amendment here today that will\nsave lives and make sure that Patrick is among the last to suffer from\na loss of life from this lack of simple safety equipment in\nhelicopters.\n This important amendment simply requires the FAA to mandate crash\nresistant fuel systems in newly manufactured helicopters. I am also\nworking on a tax credit to help fund retrofitting of existing\nhelicopters. We can't let another tragedy lead to loss of life from an\navoidable problem. All helicopters should be equipped with the best,\nmost effective, and cost-effective technology available.\n Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt this\namendment and ensure that this is part of the final bill that comes out\nof the House and Senate as well.\n Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this. I\nwould ask for an ``aye'' vote on amendment No. 49, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n\n Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. COASTAL OVERFLIGHT.\n\n The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall ensure that all aircraft transitioning from flight over\n ocean to flight over land shall fly at a safe altitude. Such\n altitude shall not be lower than specific flight operations\n require.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will\ncontrol 5 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.\n Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman DeFazio\nand, of course, Chairman Shuster for their hard work that they put into\nthis.\n Unfortunately, my amendment, as it indicates, is that a large part of\nthe job that I would have hoped that would have been accomplished by\nthe FAA reauthorization was not done in a way that handles what is, in\nmy area, the most significant problem. There are a great many\nprovisions there. But my amendment today, which I am advocating today,\nseeks to correct one area that has been given underwhelmingly little\ntreatment in this legislation, and that is called: correcting the\nproblems of air noise over our neighborhoods.\n\n {time} 1500\n\n My amendment, the amendment we are discussing at this point, will\nensure that aircraft transitioning from flight over ocean to flight\nover land be no lower than is absolutely necessary for safety.\n Many times over our coastal communities, planes are flying much lower\non approach, after taking off, and briefly climbing back over the ocean\nand then over the land.\n There is no reason that some aircraft need to be at 1,600 feet when\nother aircraft can safely fly at 3,500 feet. This amendment will\ncorrect that problem. It will require those aircraft that are coming\nover the ocean and onto land and into some flight pattern in our local\nairports and nationally in those airports, that they fly at the highest\naltitude that is safe in this situation.\n Unfortunately, I have had four amendments that were not permitted\nthat would have corrected the noise problem altogether and it would\nhave said that we would have then been able to address it.\n The reason it wasn't addressed as the bill was being prepared is that\nthis legislation and the regulations of the FAA say that safety will be\nthe first priority, efficiency will be the second priority, and then\ncommunity impact on those communities below have third priority.\n Well, the fact is there is no reason why--number one, safety does\nhave to be first, we know that--but there is no reason why the\nexcessive noise and the impact of noise and pollution on the cities\nbelow a landing area or a taking-off area should not have more\nconsideration than simply the efficiency of the airlines to save a few\nminutes.\n I am very upset that those amendments that would have corrected this\nproblem--number one, all we have to do is make sure that we are\nmandating the right priorities for the FAA; that efficiency is less\nimportant than the communities that are being flown over, because every\nday, those people have to experience noise and pollution due to the\nfact that they live near an airport.\n So those amendments, however, were not made in order, and I would\nofficially hope that we can deal with that later, but that is a great\ndisservice to those people around the country who are suffering\nexcessive noise that didn't need to happen.\n So this amendment goes far enough in terms of an issue like that, but\nwe should be solving the problem by changing the priorities and\nmandating that all airplanes, when they are flying over populated\nareas, the people who they are flying over have to be given\nconsideration by making sure that that plane is flying at the highest\naltitude that is safe.\n Unfortunately, as I say, the amendments that I offered that would\nhave mandated that actually were not made in order.\n This amendment will come to grips a little bit on this issue, but we\nhad an opportunity here to change and to solve one of the basic\ncomplaints that are being made throughout our country by American\ncitizens when dealing with air traffic.\n When we are here, our job isn't just to watch out for the airliners.\nThat is not it. We have to be considerate about the American people,\nand especially those people whose homes are there underneath the flight\npatterns.\n That is not what has happened in this legislation, and I am very\ndisturbed about it, because I had five amendments that would have\nsolved this problem once and for all, would have been fair to the\nairlines, would have made sure we were safe, that people were safe, but\nat the same time, we would see that the American people who live\nunderneath these flight paths were treated fairly and that their\nfamilies were not put at risk by excessive noise and by pollution that\ncomes from airlines flying overhead.\n Mr. Chair, I ask for my amendment to be accepted, and I yield back\nthe balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida). The gentleman from\nOregon is recognized for 5 minutes.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is\nrepresenting very well his constituents' concerns. We had an earlier\ndiscussion on the floor about the aircraft noise. An amendment was\nadopted to have the FAA study the speed of approach and take-off, which\ncan dramatically reduce the noise impact.\n I have also asked the FAA to look at establishing alternate\nperformance-based navigation routes so they are not using the same\nroute every day over the same houses and the same neighborhoods.\n When I first saw this amendment, it seemed to me innocuous since it\nseems to follow the basic requirement in the\n\n[[Page H3664]]\n\ncontroller handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, section 561, which addresses\nthis issue. However, we have been contacted by the National Air Traffic\nControllers union, and they have expressed grave concerns that they\nthink it may have unintended consequences.\n Unfortunately, they just contacted us, so we haven't been able to get\nthe details of their concerns. So in that case, I would have to oppose\nthe amendment.\n Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California\nwill be postponed.\n\n Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made\nin order by the rule.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V of the bill, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE REQUIREMENTS.\n\n None of the funds made available by this Act, including the\n amendments made by this Act, may be used to implement,\n administer, or enforce the prevailing rate of wage\n requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,\n United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon\n Act).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that this House\nhas seen before in different configurations, but it is known as the\nDavis-Bacon amendment.\n What it does, it provides that none of the funds made available by\nthis act may be used to implement, to administer, or enforce the\nprevailing rate of wage requirements, commonly referred to as the\nDavis-Bacon Act.\n Mr. Chairman, I think that we know what this bill does. It was in\n1931, it was established for, I will say, trade protectionism, labor\nprotectionism, to lock the African-American labor from Alabama out of\nthe construction trades in New York City that were unionized at that\ntime and strongly protected, and still are, actually, but the substance\nof it is this.\n I have a letter here that was written by Grover Norquist, the\npresident of Americans For Tax Reform, and in summary, it says this:\nBecause the Davis-Bacon Act reduces the number of jobs, increases\ncosts, and has a racist history, funds from the FAA Reauthorization Act\nshould not be used to fulfill Davis-Bacon Act requirements. Americans\nFor Tax Reform, therefore, strongly supports Congressman King's\namendment.\n That is one version of description of this bill.\n Here is another one I thought was a little bit more descriptive. This\nis an article written by George Will, and it is dated June 19, 2017. He\nreferences back to River City, and he says a quote from that, ``The\nMusic Man'': You really ought to give Iowa a try, provided you are\ncontrary.\n He starts out this article this way, and the quote is from ``Iowa\nStubborn'', a song in ``The Music Man'', Mr. Chairman. It says:\n\n Contrary does not quite capture Steve King's astringency.\n The Iowa native and conservative Congressman was born,\n appropriately, in Storm Lake, Iowa, and carries turbulence\n with him. He also carries experience of actual life before\n politics, when he founded a construction company, which is\n one reason he has long advocated an excellent idea: repeal of\n the Davis-Bacon law.\n King came to Congress in 2003, and has been stubbornly\n submitting repeal legislation since 2005. He would not have\n succeeded even if he were less of a prickly cactus and more\n of a shrinking violet.\n Davis-Bacon is just another piece of government that is as\n indefensible as it is indestructible. And so today, when\n social hygienists are cleansing the public square of names\n and statues tainted by historical connections with racism,\n Davis-Bacon's durability is proof that a measure's racist\n pedigree will be forgiven if the measure serves a progressive\n agenda.\n\n It is time to put an end to Davis-Bacon. We can do that here today,\nMr. Chairman.\n Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a perpetual debate here on the\nfloor whenever it comes to the expenditure of Federal tax dollars on\nprojects that are covered by Davis-Bacon, as would be projects under\nthe Airport Improvement Program and other related activities by the\nFAA.\n The bottom line here is we can chase the lowest common denominator\naround the United States, or around the world sometimes, in terms of\ntrade, and undermine the capability of Americans to make a decent\nliving, to have a home and have a family, and live the American Dream.\n The savings are illusory at best. In many cases, they would go to\nprofits for nonunion shops and others, and we would return to the old\ndays of basically exploiting those who work in construction and related\nactivities.\n Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.\nKildee).\n Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. DeFazio both for yielding, but\nespecially for his leadership on this issue.\n As the ranking member said, this is something that comes up every\nyear. Thankfully, Democrats and Republicans have stood together to\nprotect this important worker protection.\n Let's just be clear about this. This is about the desire to engage in\nthis race to the bottom to pay working families less money.\n The truth of the matter is coming from a community, a community like\nFlint, Saginaw, Bay City, where we have seen significant and continuing\nloss of earned income by working people, where we have a chance to say\nto the American people that when it is your tax dollars being spent, we\nare not going to use them to undermine the ability of a family to have\na decent wage.\n People work hard at these jobs, they have trained long for these\njobs, going through apprenticeships or other skilled training, and the\nidea that we would reverse a decades-long commitment to the American\nworker that when it comes to federally funded projects, we are going to\nensure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you get a decent wage,\nI support that, and we all should.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is\nremaining on each side?\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.\nThe gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes remaining.\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I hear these arguments constantly:\nlowest common denominator, nonunion shops.\n We know it is union scale, there is a confession that it is, even\nthough the law says that it is prevailing wage.\n Exploiting workers, race to the bottom, people work hard. These are\nstandard lines that come out every year, but I am the one that has\nlived this. We have met payroll for over 42 years, and we pay a\ncompetitive wage. We want to hire the best people we can and pay them\nthe best wages that we can, and we want to have the lowest turnover\npossible. And we are in pretty good shape that way after 42 years. I\nthink I know about this.\n\n Davis-Bacon increases inefficiencies and it puts people in the wrong\nplace doing the wrong thing for the wrong incentives.\n And by the way, who is hardworking? The taxpayers are hardworking.\nThe taxpayers are paying the bill for an extra 20 percent on every\nconstruction project in America. In a lot of cases, we are borrowing\nthe money from China and putting the debt onto our children. That is\nwhat we are faced with here, Mr. Chairman.\n Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, look around the country. There are many\nStates\n\n[[Page H3665]]\n\nthat have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal minimum\nwage of $7.50 an hour. That is pretty pathetic.\n My State is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum\nwage, but if we do away with--this says that federally funded contracts\nmust receive the local prevailing wage for their work. In Oregon, we\nhave recognized that with a higher minimum wage, so our prevailing\nwages are going to be higher than some State that only follows the\nFederal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.\n\n {time} 1515\n\n So what might some contractor do? Oh, I can go over here and hire\npeople who are used to earning $7.50 an hour. I am going to import them\ninto Oregon. Of course, you are going to still have a problem with our\nminimum wage law, but this is what this is about is to find less\nexpensive labor and move it around the country, and that, I believe, is\na disservice to the working people of the United States.\n I would urge Congress, as it has done every other time this amendment\nhas been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I appreciate the\ngentleman's remarks, but I would add for the body that the Federal\nminimum wage really is not relevant at all to this Davis-Bacon wage\nscale debate. There is nobody working under Davis-Bacon wage scales who\nis making minimum wage. And by the way, that Federal minimum wage is\nbecoming irrelevant as competition for wages is driving things up.\n But here is another way to think about this: I have long said that if\nit is a road construction, you can build 5 miles of road instead of 4\nif you get rid of Davis-Bacon; five bridges instead of four if you get\nrid of Davis-Bacon.\n If it happens to be river construction--we lost a lock and dam on the\nMississippi going into the weekend, lock and dam No. 11. These things\ncost money. There are 29 of those. We could either fix 23 of them under\nDavis-Bacon, or all 29 of them without Davis-Bacon.\n There are 45 major airports in America; and if we are going to\nrenovate those airports, we can renovate all of them, or we can\nrenovate 36 of them, depending on whether this amendment passes or\nfails.\n Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from Americans for Tax\nReform and an article from The Washington Post.\n\n Americans for Tax Reform,\n\n Washington, DC, April 26, 2018.\n Dear Members of Congress: I am writing in support of\n Congressman Steve King's (R-IA) amendment (#63) to the FAA\n Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4. The amendment prohibits the\n usage of funds from the bill to ``implement, administer, or\n enforce'' the prevailing wage requirements in the Davis-Bacon\n Act.\n The Davis-Bacon Act is a 1931 federal law that has a\n history of high costs, lost jobs and racism. It requires\n contractors and subcontractors to pay the local ``prevailing\n wage'' on public works projects (over $2,000) for laborers\n and mechanics. The ``prevailing wage'' is usually a wage set\n by unions and is typically much higher than the average wage\n for the job in the area. This leads to higher government\n project costs, hurting small non-unionized contractors and\n costing low-skilled jobs.\n In fact, the Government Accountability Office (General\n Accounting Office) in 1979 urged the repeal of Davis-Bacon\n for these same reasons. Further, a 2011 study by the Heritage\n Foundation found that the Act added almost $11 billion to the\n deficit in 2011 in unnecessary expenses, while suspending the\n Act would have added 155,000 construction jobs. Finally, the\n Congressional Budget Office reported in 2016 that repealing\n the act would reduce discretionary outlays by $13 billion\n from 2018 through 2026.\n In addition to raising costs and losing jobs, the Act also\n has racist origins and was passed during the Great Depression\n because minority migrant workers were taking jobs meant for\n white locals at lower wages.\n Because the Davis-Bacon Act reduces the number of jobs,\n increases costs and has a racist history, funds from the FAA\n Reauthorization Act should not be used to fulfill Davis-Bacon\n Act requirements. Americans for Tax Reform, therefore,\n strongly supports Congressman King's amendment.\n Sincerely,\n Grover Norquist,\n President, Americans for Tax Reform.\n ____\n\n [From the Washington Post, June 19, 2017]\n\n A Racist Vestige of the Past That Progressives Are Happy To Leave in\n Place\n\n (By George F. Will)\n\n ``You really ought to give Iowa a try. Provided you are\n contrary.''--``Iowa Stubborn,'' from Meredith Wilson's ``The\n Music Man''\n ``Contrary'' does not quite capture Steve King's\n astringency. The Iowa native and conservative congressman was\n born, appropriately, in Storm Lake, and carries turbulence\n with him. He also carries experience of actual life before\n politics, when he founded a construction company, which is\n one reason he has long advocated an excellent idea--repeal of\n the Davis-Bacon law.\n King came to Congress in 2003 and has been stubbornly\n submitting repeal legislation since 2005. He would not have\n succeeded even if he were less of a prickly cactus and more\n of a shrinking violet. Davis-Bacon is just another piece of\n government that is as indefensible as it is indestructible.\n It is too secure to require defending because it benefits a\n muscular faction. Repeal would, however, reduce the cost of\n new infrastructure by many billions of dollars. And today,\n when social hygienists are cleansing the public square of\n names and statues tainted by historical connections with\n racism, Davis-Bacon's durability is proof that a measure's\n racist pedigree will be forgiven if the measure serves a\n progressive agenda.\n Davis-Bacon was enacted in 1931 to require construction\n contractors to pay ``prevailing wages'' on federal projects.\n Generally, this means paying union wage scales. It was\n enacted as domestic protectionism, largely to protect\n organized labor from competition by African Americans who\n often were excluded from union membership but who were\n successfully competing for jobs by being willing to work for\n lower wages.\n In 1927, Rep. Robert Bacon, a Long Island Republican, was\n miffed because the low bidder for a construction project in\n his district--a veterans' hospital--was an Alabama contractor\n who used black labor. That year, when Bacon first introduced\n his legislation, he showed that he was not a narrow-gauge\n bigot. He inserted into the Congressional Record the\n following statement by 34 professors concerning immigration\n legislation:\n ``We urge the extension of the quota system to all\n countries of North and South America from which we have\n substantial immigration and in which the population is not\n predominantly of the white race . . . Only by this method can\n that large proportion of our population which is descended\n from the colonists . . . have their proper racial\n representation.''\n By 1931, the Depression had made government construction\n money especially coveted and Davis-Bacon passed with the\n support of the American Federation of Labor. The\n congressional debate that preceded enactment was replete with\n references to ``unattached migratory workmen,'' ``itinerant\n labor,'' ``cheap, imported labor,'' ``cheap bootleg labor''\n and ``labor lured from distant places'' for ``competition\n with white labor throughout the country.''\n Hearings on Davis-Bacon brought out the drollery in Rep.\n William Upshaw, a Georgia Democrat. He said he hoped his\n Northern colleagues in Congress would permit a Southerner to\n smile about ``your reaction to that real problem you are\n confronted with in any community with a superabundance or\n large aggregation of Negro labor.''\n In 1931, the unemployment rate of blacks was approximately\n the same as the rate for the general population. Davis-Bacon\n is one reason the rate for blacks began to deviate adversely.\n In 1932, generally there were about 3,500 workers building\n what became Hoover Dam. Never more than 30 were black.\n In 1993, with Congress stoutly opposed to taking anything\n from something as powerful as organized labor, opponents of\n Davis-Bacon turned to the judiciary. A lawsuit on behalf of\n some minority contractors challenged the law's\n constitutionality, arguing that it burdened the exercise of a\n fundamental civil right--the right to earn a living. And that\n it had a disparate impact on minority workers and small\n minority-owned construction businesses. The suit languished\n in court for almost a decade before the plaintiffs lost,\n victims of excessive judicial deference to the legislature.\n In 1992, to expedite cleanup after Hurricanes Andrew and\n Iniki, President George H.W. Bush suspended portions of\n Davis-Bacon in South Florida, coastal Louisiana and Hawaii.\n Bush's successor, Bill Clinton, promptly reversed Bush's\n policy.\n A 2011 Heritage Foundation study estimated that Davis-Bacon\n would add almost $11 billion to that year's construction\n costs. That sum will be eclipsed when--if--bold talk about\n making America's infrastructure great again is translated\n into spending. Then we build up the national debt while\n purchasing less infrastructure than the appropriated sums\n should purchase.\n Davis-Bacon is rent-seeking, the use of political power to\n supplant the market as the allocator of opportunity and\n wealth. Rent-seeking is lucrative, which is why there is so\n much of it, even when its pedigree is repulsive.\n\n Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment,\nand I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes\nappeared to have it.\n\n[[Page H3666]]\n\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be\npostponed.\n\n Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania\n\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer\namendments en bloc.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.\n Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 66, 69, 70, 71,\n72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98,\n99, 100, and 101 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, offered by\nMr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:\n\n Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. fortenberry of nebraska\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. SAFETY EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITIES.\n\n Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended by adding at the end the following:\n ``(P) Constructing storage facilities to shelter snow\n removal equipment or aircraft rescue and firefighting\n equipment that is owned by the airport sponsor and used\n exclusively to maintain safe airfield operations, up to the\n facility size necessary to accommodate the types and\n quantities of equipment prescribed by the FAA, regardless of\n whether Federal funding was used to acquire the equipment.''.\n\n Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. suozzi of new york\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. REPORT ON AIRLINE AND PASSENGER SAFETY.\n\n (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall submit to the Committee on\n Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of\n Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and\n Transportation of the Senate a report on airline and\n passenger safety.\n (b) Contents.--The report required under subsection (a)\n shall include--\n (1) the average age of commercial aircraft owned and\n operated by United States air carriers;\n (2) the over-all use of planes, including average lifetime\n of commercial aircraft;\n (3) the number of hours aircraft are in flight over the\n life of the aircraft and the average number of hours on\n domestic and international flights , respectively; and\n (4) the impact of metal fatigue on aircraft usage and\n safety;\n (5) a review on contractor assisted maintenance of\n commercial aircraft; and\n (6) a re-evaluation of the rules on inspection of aging\n airplanes.\n\n Amendment No. 70 Offered by Ms. maxine waters of california\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. 543. REPORT ON AIRCRAFT DIVERSIONS FROM LAX TO HAWTHORNE\n MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of\n this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall issue and make available to the public a\n report on diversions of aircraft from Los Angeles\n International Airport (LAX) to Hawthorne Municipal Airport,\n also known as Jack Northrop Field, in the City of Hawthorne,\n California. This report shall cover at least the previous\n one-year period and include the total number of aircraft\n diversions, the average number of diversions per day, the\n types of aircraft diverted, and the reasons for the\n diversions.\n\n Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. pearce of new mexico\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SECTION ___. FORMER MILITARY AIRPORTS.\n\n Section 47118(a) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended--\n (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``or'' at the end;\n (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and\n inserting ``; or''; and\n (3) by adding at the end the following:\n ``(3) the airport is--\n ``(A) a former military installation; and\n ``(B) a primary airport.''.\n\n Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. fleischmann of tennessee\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following new section:\n\n SEC. 543. USE OF STATE HIGHWAY SPECIFICATIONS.\n\n Section 47114(d)(5) of title 49, United States Code, is\n amended to read as follows:\n ``(5) Use of state highway specifications.--The Secretary\n shall use the highway specifications of a State for airfield\n pavement construction and improvement using funds made\n available under this subsection at nonprimary airports\n serving aircraft that do not exceed 60,000 pounds gross\n weight if--\n ``(A) such State requests the use of such specifications;\n and\n ``(B) the Secretary determines that--\n ``(i) safety will not be negatively affected; and\n ``(ii) the life of the pavement, with necessary maintenance\n and upkeep, will not be shorter than it would be if\n constructed using Administration standards.''.\n\n Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. takano of california\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. SENSE OF CONGRESS.\n\n It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator of the\n Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary should\n produce a smart airports initiative plan that focuses on\n creating a more consumer-friendly and digitally connected\n airport experience. The plan should include recommendations\n on modernizing technologies to provide more efficient check-\n ins, shortened security lines, Wi-Fi and GPS upgrades, as\n well as improvements of aircraft turnaround for on-time\n boarding and flights. The purpose of the initiative is to\n invest in technologies and infrastructure toward better-\n connected airports while providing appropriate national\n security and cybersecurity for travelers.\n\n Amendment No. 74 Offered by Ms. speier of california\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. OXYGEN MASK DESIGN STUDY.\n\n Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall conduct a study to review and evaluate the design and\n effectiveness of commercial aircraft oxygen masks. In\n conducting the study, the Administrator shall determine\n whether the current design of oxygen masks is adequate, and\n whether changes to the design could increase correct\n passenger usage of the masks.\n\n Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. gibbs of ohio\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. STANDARDS FOR PILOTS.\n\n (a) Age Adjustment.--Section 44729(a) of title 49, United\n States Code, is amended by striking ``covered operations\n until attaining 65 years of age'' and inserting ``covered\n operations described under subsection (b)(1) until attaining\n 65 years of age and covered operations described under\n subsection (b)(2) until attaining 70 years of age''.\n (b) Covered Operations.--Section 44729(b) of title 49,\n United States Code, is amended by striking ``means operations\n under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''\n and inserting ``means--\n ``(1) operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations; and\n ``(2) operations by a person that--\n ``(A) holds an air carrier certificate issued pursuant to\n part 119 to conduct operations under part 135 of title 14,\n Code of Federal Regulations; and\n ``(B) qualifies as a program manager under subpart K of\n part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and\n ``(C) performed an aggregate total of at least 150,000\n turbojet operations in--\n ``(i) calendar year 2017; or\n ``(ii) any subsequent year.''.\n (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section\n shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this\n Act.\n\n Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. hastings of florida\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. STUDY REGARDING TECHNOLOGY USAGE AT AIRPORTS.\n\n Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall conduct a study and report the findings of such study\n to the appropriate committees of Congress regarding--\n (1) technology developed by international entities\n (including foreign nations and companies) that have been\n installed in American airports and aviation systems over the\n past decade, including the nation where the technology was\n developed and the any airports utilizing the technology; and\n (2) aviation safety related technology developed and\n implemented by international entities with proven track\n records of success that may assist in establishing best\n practices to improve American aviation operations and safety.\n\n Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. denham of california\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. ___. APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION.\n\n Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act\n of 2016 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended--\n (1) in subsection (b)(1)(C)--\n (A) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and\n (B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:\n ``(iv) Railroad facilities.''; and\n (2) by adding at the end the following:\n ``(e) Deadlines.--\n ``(1) Not later than December 31, 2018, the Administrator\n shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to carry out\n the requirements of this section.\n ``(2) Not later than 12 months after publishing the notice\n of proposed rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Administrator\n shall issue a final rule.''.\n\n Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. doggett of texas\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. APPLICABILITY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATION STANDARDS TO\n OPERATORS OF AIR BALLOONS.\n\n (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited a the\n ``Commercial Balloon Pilot Safety Act of 2018''.\n (b) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the\n\n[[Page H3667]]\n\n Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall\n revise section 61.3(c) of title 14, Code of Federal\n Regulations (relating to second-class medical certificates),\n to apply to an operator of an air balloon to the same extent\n such regulations apply to a pilot flight crewmember of other\n aircraft.\n (c) Air Balloon Defined.--In this section, the term ``air\n balloon'' has the meaning given the term ``balloon'' in\n section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any\n corresponding similar regulation or ruling).\n\n Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. carter of georgia\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL.\n\n (a) Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Equipment Rental.--\n (1) In general.--With respect to any cost-effectiveness\n analysis for equipment acquisition conducted on or after the\n date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this\n Act, the head of each executive agency shall consider\n equipment rental in such cost-effectiveness analysis.\n (2) Federal acquisition regulation.--The Federal\n Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to implement the\n requirement under paragraph (1).\n (b) Study of Cost-effectiveness Analysis.--Not later than 2\n years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the\n Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the\n Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of\n Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and\n Governmental Affairs of the Senate a comprehensive report on\n the decisions made by the executive agencies with the highest\n levels of acquisition spending, and a sample of executive\n agencies with lower levels of acquisition spending, to\n acquire high-value equipment by lease, rental, or purchase\n pursuant to subpart 7.4 of the Federal Acquisition\n Regulation.\n (c) Definitions.--In this section:\n (1) Equipment rental.--The term ``equipment rental'' means\n the acquisition of equipment by contract from a commercial\n source for a temporary period of use with no fixed duration.\n (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has\n the meaning given that term in section 102 of title 40,\n United States Code.\n\n Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. lance of new jersey\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. REPORT.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act (except as described in subsection\n (d)), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall submit to the appropriate congressional\n committees a report containing the results of the study\n described in subsection (b).\n (b) Recommendations.--The Administrator shall make\n recommendations based on--\n (1) an analysis of--\n (A) the economic effects of temporary flight restrictions,\n particularly temporary flight restrictions issued pursuant to\n section 91.141 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, on\n airports or aviation-related businesses located or based in\n an area covered by the temporary flight restriction; and\n (B) potential options and recommendations for mitigating\n identified negative economic effects on airports or aviation-\n related businesses located or based in an area frequently\n covered by a temporary flight restriction; and\n (2) an analysis of the potential for using security\n procedures similar to those described in the Maryland Three\n Program (allowing properly vetted private pilots to fly to,\n from, or between the three general aviation airports closest\n to the National Capital Region) during temporary flight\n restrictions in the following airports:\n (A) Solberg Airport.\n (B) Somerset Airport.\n (C) Palm Beach County Park Airport (also known as Lantana\n Airport).\n (c) Collaboration.--In making the recommendations described\n in subsection (b), the Administrator shall consult with--\n (1) industry stakeholders; and\n (2) the head of any other agency that, in the\n Administrator's determination, is a stakeholder agency.\n (d) Special Deadline.--Not later than 90 days after the\n date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit\n to the appropriate congressional committees a report\n containing the results of the portion of the study described\n in subsection (b)(1)(A).\n\n Amendment No. 86 Offered by Ms. jayapal of washington\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. STUDY ON INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF FAST-GROWING\n AIRPORTS.\n\n (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with an\n institution of higher education to conduct a study on the\n infrastructure needs of airports--\n (1) in metropolitan statistical areas with an average 5-\n year, year-to-year population growth rate between 6 and 13\n percent; and\n (2) with an average 5-year, year-to-year passenger growth\n rate between 7 and 10 percent.\n (b) Contents.--The study conducted pursuant to subsection\n (a) shall include--\n (1) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of the\n airports described in subsection (a);\n (2) an examination of how such infrastructure needs are\n related to the population and economic growth of relevant\n metropolitan statistical areas;\n (3) an assessment of the infrastructure funding and\n financing tools available to such airports;\n (4) the development of recommendations on additional\n funding and financing tools that may provide significant new\n revenues and flexibility;\n (5) an estimate of the population and economic growth rate\n of the relevant metropolitan statistical areas over the next\n 10 years; and\n (6) the development of recommendations on how such airports\n can best fund the infrastructure necessary to accommodate--\n (A) increases in passenger growth; and\n (B) population and economic growth in the relevant\n metropolitan statistical areas.\n\n Amendment No. 89 Offered by Ms. meng of new york\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. AIRCRAFT NOISE RESEARCH AND MITIGATION STRATEGY.\n\n Not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and\n Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, Space, and\n Technology, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the\n Senate a 5-year aircraft noise research and mitigation\n strategy.\n\n Amendment No. 90 Offered by Ms. meng of new york\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. ALTERNATIVE AIRPLANE NOISE METRIC EVALUATION\n DEADLINE.\n\n Not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall complete the ongoing evaluation of alternative metrics\n to the current Day Night Level (DNL) 65 standard.\n\n Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. meadows of north carolina\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS.\n\n The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with\n Federal law, and based on input by the public, ensure that\n regulations, guidance, and policies issued by the Federal\n Aviation Administration on and after the date of enactment of\n this Act are issued in the form of performance-based\n standards, providing an equal or higher level of safety.\n\n Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. REPORT TO CONGRESS.\n\n Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this\n section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration, in consultation with the National\n Transportation Safety Board, shall issue a report to the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation of the Senate that--\n (1) provides a technical review of systems capable of\n detecting wrong surface alignment to determine whether the\n capability exists to detect imminent wrong-surface landings\n at each airport where such a system is in use; and\n (2) includes information gathered from the use of Airport\n Surface Surveillance Capability System (ASSC) at San\n Francisco International Airport since July 2017.\n\n Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CERTAIN AVIATION\n SAFETY RISKS.\n\n Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of\n this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall submit to the Committee on\n Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of\n Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and\n Transportation of the Senate a report that--\n (1) identifies safety risks associated with power outages\n at airports caused by weather or other factors, and\n recommends actions to improve resilience of aviation\n communication, navigation, and surveillance systems in the\n event of such outages; and\n (2) reviews alerting mechanisms, devices, and procedures\n for enhancing the situational awareness of pilots and air\n traffic controllers in the event of a failure or an\n irregularity of runway lights, and provides recommendations\n on the further implementation of such mechanisms, devices, or\n procedures.\n\n Amendment No. 94 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. REPORT TO CONGRESS.\n\n Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this\n section, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration, in consultation with the National\n Transportation Safety Board, shall issue a report to the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation of the Senate that reviews the relative\n benefits and risks of requiring the use of runway awareness\n and advisory systems in turbine-powered airplanes\n\n[[Page H3668]]\n\n under the provisions of part 121 or part 129 of title 14,\n Code of Federal Regulations.\n\n Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. desaulnier of california\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __ REVIEW OF FAA'S AVIATION SAFETY INFORMATION ANALYSIS\n AND SHARING SYSTEM.\n\n (a) Audit by Department of Transportation Inspector\n General.--\n (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment\n of this Act, the Inspector General shall initiate a follow-up\n review of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)\n Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS)\n System to assess FAA's efforts and plans to improve the\n system.\n (2) Review.--The review should include, at a minimum, an\n evaluation of FAA's efforts to improve the ASIAS system's\n predictive capabilities and solutions developed to more\n widely disseminate results of ASIAS data analyses, as well as\n an update on previous Inspector General recommendations to\n improve this safety analysis and sharing system.\n (3) Report.--The Inspector General shall submit to the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,\n and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of\n its review and any recommendations to improve FAA's ASIAS\n system.\n\n Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mrs. lawrence of michigan\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. CYBERSECURITY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE STANDARDS\n PLAN.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of\n this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall, in consultation with the National\n Institute of Standards and Technology and the Committee on\n Technology of the National Science and Technology Council,\n transmit to the Committee on Transportation and\n Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee\n on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of\n Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and\n Transportation of the Senate a report that contains a\n cybersecurity and artificial intelligence standards plan for\n Federal Aviation Administration operations that takes into\n consideration the influence of cybersecurity on artificial\n intelligence and of artificial intelligence on cybersecurity.\n\n Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. cardenas of california\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON HIRING VETERANS.\n\n It is the sense of Congress that the aviation industry,\n including certificate holders under parts 121, 135, and 145\n of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, should hire more of\n the Nation's veterans.\n\n Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. lipinski of illinois\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. ___. GAO STUDY.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on\n Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the\n Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n of Representatives a report containing a review of the\n following:\n (1) Direct and indirect effects on passengers, if any,\n resulting from significant computer network disruptions of 49\n CFR Part 121 air carriers between January 1, 2014, and the\n date of enactment of this section, including--\n (A) systemwide delays;\n (B) flight cancellations; and\n (C) disrupted or broken itineraries.\n (2) An estimate of any expenses incurred by passengers\n during significant computer network disruptions, including--\n (A) meals, lodging, and ancillary expenses per persons;\n (B) late hotel check-in or car rental fees;\n (C) missed cruise-ship departures; and\n (D) lost productivity.\n (3) Air carriers' contracts of carriage and interline\n agreements to determine if and how air carriers accommodate\n passengers affected by significant computer network\n disruptions on other air carriers or foreign air carriers.\n (4) Whether passengers who have been displaced by\n significant computer network disruptions are furnished with\n alternative transportation aboard another air carrier or\n foreign air carrier.\n (5) Costs incurred by airports, if any, to meet the\n essential needs of passengers, including increased demands on\n utilities, food concessionaires, restroom facilities, and\n security staffing, during significant computer network\n disruptions.\n (6) Other costs, if any, incurred by passengers, airports,\n and other entities as a direct result of significant computer\n network disruptions.\n (7) Processes, plans, and redundancies in place at air\n carriers to respond to and recover from such network\n disruptions.\n\n Amendment No. 101 Offered by Ms. moore of wisconsin\n\n Page 267, after line 11, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. PROMPT PAYMENTS.\n\n (a) Reporting of Complaints.--Not later than 30 days after\n the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the\n Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that each\n airport that participates in the Program tracks, and reports\n to the Administrator, the number of covered complaints made\n in relation to activities at that airport.\n (b) Improving Compliance.--\n (1) In general.--The Administrator shall take actions to\n assess and improve compliance with prompt payment\n requirements under part 26 of title 49, Code of Federal\n Regulations.\n (2) Contents of assessment.--In carrying out paragraph (1),\n the Administrator shall assess--\n (A) whether requirements relating to the inclusion of\n prompt payment language in contracts are being satisfied;\n (B) whether and how airports are enforcing prompt payment\n requirements;\n (C) the processes by which covered complaints are received\n and resolved by airports;\n (D) whether improvements need to be made to--\n (i) better track covered complaints received by airports;\n and\n (ii) assist the resolution of covered complaints in a\n timely manner;\n (E) the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution\n mechanisms with respect to resolving covered complaints;\n (F) best practices that ensure prompt payment requirements\n are satisfied;\n (G) the Federal Aviation Administration resources,\n including staff, that are dedicated to helping resolve\n covered complaints; and\n (H) how the Federal Aviation Administration can enhance\n efforts to resolve covered complaints, including by using\n timelines and providing additional staffing and other\n resources.\n (3) Reporting.--The Administrator shall make available to\n the public on an appropriate website operated by the\n Administrator a report describing the results of the\n assessment completed under this subsection, including a plan\n to respond to such results.\n (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following\n definitions apply:\n (1) Covered complaint.--The term ``covered complaint''\n means a complaint relating to an alleged failure to satisfy a\n prompt payment requirement under part 26 of title 49, Code of\n Federal Regulations.\n (2) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the airport\n disadvantaged business enterprise program referenced in\n section 140(a) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of\n 2012 (49 U.S.C. 47113 note).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.\nDeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en\nbloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and\nminority. These Members put forward thoughtful amendments, and I am\npleased to be able to support moving them en bloc.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n These amendments, en bloc, have been reviewed, both by the majority\nand the minority, and there is consensus on their merit. I urge my\ncolleagues to support them.\n Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), I would say\nfirst that I strongly support his amendment and tried to work with the\nformer FAA Administrator to rectify this issue that led to this\nextraordinary and unnecessary loss of life.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman\nfrom Texas (Mr. Doggett).\n Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership\non that and his help. I wish the FAA had listened. And I thank Mr.\nShuster and the staffs on both sides of the committee for including\nthis amendment with others that need to be part of this action.\n It was about 2 years ago that the largest, most deadly crash of a\ncommercial balloon in American history occurred just south of Austin,\nnear Lockhart and Maxwell, Texas. It was, in fact, and remains the\nlargest aviation disaster of any type in this decade. When that\nmorning, that Saturday morning ended, this was all that was left, along\nwith the bodies of the victims of this.\n The Federal Aviation Administration had been asked, prior to this\nincident, by the National Transportation Safety Board, to take a closer\nlook and come up with reasonable regulations for the commercial balloon\nindustry. The FAA failed to do that. Since this accident, the Federal\nAviation Administration has been asked, once again, by the National\nTransportation Safety Board to act on this matter, and the FAA has\nagain failed.\n The families of the victims launched a petition on their own to\nexpress their\n\n[[Page H3669]]\n\nconcern about this. I have joined them, others have joined them, in\nasking for action, and it is clear that only legislative action by us\nwill address this problem.\n I am hopeful that, with the passage of this amendment, which is\nnarrow, which is bipartisan, and is directed only to assuring that\nindividuals who are flying these--lifting off in these balloons are\nmedically fit to do so. Had that been in place, I believe that this\nincident would never have happened.\n So the grief, the horror, that these families experienced, many of\nthem want to channel it into seeing that no other family faces a\nsimilar crisis. This is an incident that had a widespread effect. I\ntalked with the owner of the property where the crash occurred. There\nwas a giant prayer circle around the Caldwell County Courthouse of\nconcern of many people in the county for what happened here.\n I just want to thank my colleagues for incorporating this amendment\nin because I think it will help save lives in the future.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nTennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).\n Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to\nthe House FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.\n I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr.\nShuster, and the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for the opportunity to\noffer this amendment.\n My amendment supports our Nation's more than 5,000 general aviation\nairports by providing a commonsense solution to reduce the cost and\nconstruction time for critical pavement projects, while maintaining the\nhighest level of safety and quality.\n Our general aviation airports provide critical access, vital\nemergency and medical services, economic activity, and many other\nimportant services, as vital lifelines, especially in rural areas.\n However, the cost of building and maintaining runways at general\naviation airports has become unnecessarily burdensome and costly, due\nto outdated pavement specification requirements that the FAA recognizes\ncan and should be updated. As such, in consultation with key industry\ngroups and agencies, I have introduced this amendment to address this\nissue.\n Among many other things, this reform will better equip our dedicated\nnetwork of State aviation officials, airports, and other good\npersonnel, working on the front lines in maintaining and improving our\nNation's airports. This amendment will allow them to undertake more\nprojects efficiently and safely, with commonsense savings that frees up\nadditional funding for other critical projects.\n More specifically, after extensive field testing that has provided\nconcrete evidence that States can and have utilized alternative\npavement mixes, procured more conveniently and cost-effectively from\nlocal businesses on critical runway projects to safely maintain our\nNation's runway systems of general aviation airports.\n Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from\nWisconsin (Ms. Moore).\n Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4\nto ensure that the FAA is helping businesses that have been\nhistorically discriminated against when it comes to government\ncontracting. And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their\nsupport.\n Adoption of my amendment is a good start, but much more needs to be\ndone to address discrimination and related barriers that still exist.\nThis includes addressing the exclusion of any Federal DBE participation\nrequirements or goals for Passenger Facility Charge-funded projects. It\nis critical that we don't miss the opportunity to address these\nbarriers.\n\n I want to remind everyone that billions of dollars of transportation\ncontracts are at stake in this reauthorization. And for businesses that\nhave been historically discriminated against in transportation\ncontracting, they just want a chance to compete for these dollars.\n In this reauthorization, Congress must continue to ensure that\nqualified minority and women-owned businesses in every congressional\ndistrict can fairly compete for work.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nNew Jersey (Mr. Lance).\n Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to Chairman Shuster and Ranking\nMember DeFazio.\n I rise today in support of this en bloc package that contains my\nbipartisan amendment requiring the FAA to study the economic impact of\nTemporary Flight Restrictions on local airports and to recommend ways\nto mitigate the negative effects, potentially including creating\nsecurity procedures to allow limited use of certain airports during a\nTFR.\n This is about fairness for New Jersey pilots and small businesses.\nThe President and the First Family use Trump National Golf Course in\nBedminster, New Jersey, in the district I serve, as a weekend residence\nduring the late spring, the summer, and the early fall. During such\nvisits to Bedminster, a TFR is imposed in the area, shuttering Solberg\nand Somerset airports, and grounding recreational and training flights.\n The safety of the President and the First Family and the official\nvisitors to Bedminster is, of course, paramount, but TFRs can be very\nchallenging, and I want to find a compromise with the Federal Aviation\nAdministration and the Secret Service so that pilots can be vetted,\nprescreened, and allowed to fly.\n This is not a new idea. For some airports in Maryland, near\nWashington, D.C., pilots are permitted limited operation after being\nproperly vetted. I seek the same status for constituents I serve in New\nJersey.\n I thank the chairman for his interest and ask for further help in\ncrafting this policy with the FAA. I further hope to work with him on\nestablishing a temporary reimbursement program, as was done for the\nMaryland airports in the early 2000s. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this\nlegislation.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the\namendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chair, last year was the safest on record for\ncommercial air travel, and the United States has one of the safest\nsystems in the world.\n However, last Tuesday's emergency landing by Southwest Airlines\nFlight 1380--and the tragic death of a passenger--Jennifer Riordan--is\na call to action when it comes to assuring airline and passenger\nsafety.\n Tuesday's incident on Southwest Flight 1380 was caused when the\naircraft's left engine suddenly exploded mid-flight.\n Metal weakness or ``metal fatigue'' was found in the left jet engine\nthat failed during the flight of Southwest 1380.\n This issue is one of the reasons I have introduced an amendment to\nH.R. 4, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act.\n The FAA needs to understand the full scope of any and all dangers\nconnected to metal fatigue.\n My amendment instructs the FAA Administrator to produce a report on\nairline and passenger safety within 180 days of House passage.\n More specifically, my amendment instructs the FAA to study the issue\nof metal fatigue as well as the age and over-all use of U.S. commercial\naircraft.\n Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I imagine many in this room have seen the\n60 Minutes report on Allegiant Air.\n The report exposed numerous safety problems at Allegiant Air, a low-\ncost carrier that is more than three times as likely to have in-flight\nmechanical emergencies than any other major airline.\n I'm deeply concerned about the issues at Allegiant.\n I also worry about reports that the FAA has shied away from punishing\nairlines that cut corners with regards to passenger safety. That's just\nflat-out unacceptable.\n Finally, Congress needs to be concerned about the practice of\noffshoring U.S. aircraft maintenance to foreign repair stations.\n Today, approximately 24 percent of total heavy aircraft maintenance\nis offshored to repair facilities in other countries, more than triple\nthe share offshored in 2003.\n This offshoring has cost hardworking Americans thousands of aircraft\nmaintenance jobs.\n This practice has also raised real concerns regarding the level of\nU.S. oversight on offshored maintenance work.\n Safety and security regulatory gaps persist, creating a double\nstandard for domestic maintenance workers and workers overseas.\n A dangerous double standard that could result in an airline--\npassenger tragedy.\n\n[[Page H3670]]\n\n That's why my amendment also instructs the FAA to review policies\nregarding maintenance performed by contractors.\n Overall, our mission is simple, clear and all-important:\n To empower the FAA to root out any problems in the hopes of\npreventing any further tragedies.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered\nby the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n The en bloc amendments were agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Beyer\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION HELICOPTER FLIGHT PATHS.\n\n (a) In General.--With respect to the National Capital\n Region, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall review and revise helicopter flight\n paths, including those used by the Department of Defense and\n all military helicopters, identifying and issuing new\n official paths for areas in which helicopters may be able to\n fly at higher altitudes.\n (b) Considerations.--In carrying out the review and\n revision under subsection (a), the Administrator must\n consider--\n (1) residents living below the flight paths;\n (2) national security and emergency flight paths, which\n shall only be used in cases of emergency; and\n (3) fixed-wing plane flight paths.\n (c) Definition of National Capital Region.--In this\n section, the term ``National Capital Region'' means--\n (1) the District of Columbia;\n (2) Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties in Maryland;\n (3) Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William\n Counties in Virginia; and\n (4) all cities and towns included within the outer\n boundaries of the foregoing counties.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.\n Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I consistently hear a great deal from my\nconstituents about pervasive, intrusive helicopter noise. I have\ncarefully listened to them for years, through community forums,\ntownhalls, letters, emails, phone calls, and the like. I have also\nworked with both the FAA and the Department of Defense on possible\nsolutions.\n We certainly have a difficult balance to strike in the National\nCapital Region, but people shouldn't have to live under the constant\nthunder of helicopter noise. Helicopter noise, by all accounts, has\ngotten significantly worse year after year after year. Even those who\nare neighbors with the Pentagon have noticed it has gotten much worse.\n\n {time} 1530\n\n Last year, I had an amendment to the NDAA for the Department of\nDefense to conduct a study on mitigating the helicopter noise. We had\nexcellent conversations. Colonels and majors came out from the Air\nForce, the Army, the Marines, and the FAA came out. We had big townhall\nmeetings. In those conversations, we moved forward with a now completed\nDOD noise study.\n The Department of Defense has repeatedly informed me that they follow\nthe FAA helicopter maps perfectly and that they fly at the required\nminimum altitudes. So as a solution, my amendment would require the FAA\nto simply review all the helicopter flight paths in the national\ncapital region, including those used solely by the Department of\nDefense, to assess whether some of these helicopter trips could be\nsafely flown at a higher altitude. If they can be, the amendment would\nalso require the FAA to revise the official helicopter flight maps for\nthis region to allow some relief for those communities that live below.\n Progress has remained very slow on this issue--glacial--and I urge my\ncolleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment so that we can move\nforward with a responsible way to mitigate this helicopter noise.\n I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this\namendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.\n This amendment would interfere with national security, homeland\nsecurity, and law enforcement operations.\n As home to the Nation's Capital, the area serves a critical role for\nthe country as home to the Federal Government. Each day, military\npilots and other agencies use helicopters to conduct vital missions as\npart of our national defense and the operations of government. These\nagencies include the DOD, the Coast Guard, Park Police, Capitol Police,\nand other agencies. The missions they fly cannot be accomplished by any\nother means and are essential to our Nation's protection.\n This amendment would add complexity to the airspace and could affect\nthe safety of our servicemembers and law enforcement and affect the\nefficiency of the airspace.\n Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and I hope we\ncan find some way to address them, but I urge my colleagues to oppose\nthis amendment.\n I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the chairman of the\ncommittee, the many conversations I have had with the general who runs\nthe Washington Military District, with the Air Force and Army colonels,\nwith the Marine major, and with many of the helicopter pilots, none of\nthem have suggested for a moment that national security, homeland\nsecurity, or law enforcement were at risk here. In fact, the pilots\nsaid: We would be happy to fly higher as long as we have permission\nfrom the FAA.\n We are not interfering in the slightest with their ability to\naccomplish their mission. We understand their mission. We respect it.\n No one is saying that we can't protect not only our Nation's top\nexecutives, but also the military officers who need to fly in and\naround this region. What we are simply saying is that, in many cases,\n300 feet, 500 feet, 700 feet is a more logical place to fly.\n We have had testimony that people have been in apartment buildings in\nCrystal City, looked out their window, and seen the helicopters fly\nbelow their window. This happens in Rosslyn, also.\n What we are simply asking is that the FAA responsibly look at\nwhether--with lots of feedback from the Army, Air Force, Marines, from\nlaw enforcement, from the Secret Service--they couldn't, in fact, fly a\nfew hundred feet higher than they fly right now. If they can't, we will\naccept that and do our best to move some other way. But, really, this\nis at the recommendation of our military leaders that the FAA examine\nthis and find a way to move forward.\n Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia\nwill be postponed.\n\n Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Smith of Nebraska\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 68\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, add the following:\n\n SEC. __. GAO STUDY ON AVIATION WORKFORCE.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United\n States shall initiate a study, based on previous studies,\n that looks at the current and future supply of individuals in\n the aviation workforce.\n (b) Review.--In carrying out the study, the Comptroller\n General shall review, at a minimum--\n (1) the current state of the aviation workforce;\n (2) barriers to entry into the aviation workforce; and\n\n[[Page H3671]]\n\n (3) options to increase the future supply of individuals in\n the aviation workforce.\n (c) Submission.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit\n to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the\n House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the\n results of the study, including any findings and\n recommendations.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Nebraska (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.\n Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I\nmay consume.\n Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would direct\nthe Comptroller General to study the current and future availability of\npilots in the aviation workforce.\n Since the implementation of new pilot training requirements for first\nofficers in 2013, two airlines which provided air service to my\ncongressional district have filed for bankruptcy, citing the inability\nto find pilots as a primary factor in their financial struggles. Even\nbefore withdrawing from Nebraska, both airlines had poor flight\ncancellation records, which they indicated was caused by this issue,\nseverely reducing enplanements at these airports.\n In rural areas like Nebraska's Third District, commercial air service\nprovides a vital economic link for communities which are several hours'\ndrive from the nearest major airport.\n In an effort to further address the concerns of the seven communities\nwith passenger air service in my district and numerous others around\nthe country, this amendment merely asks GAO to study what the current\nstate of the aviation workforce is, where it is going in the future,\nand what, if anything, we can do to mitigate pilot shortages. We must\ndo more to address these communities' concerns, and this study will\nprovide valuable information as we seek to address this problem.\n Beyond the direct economic impact on these communities from the loss\nof these flights, these cancellations have also caused overall\nenplanements at airports such as Kearney, North Platte, and\nScottsbluff, Nebraska, and other airports in a number of other States,\nto fall below the minimum 10,000 required to qualify for full Airport\nImprovement Program funding.\n Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member\nfor moving my other amendment en bloc to provide regulatory relief to\nairports by treating them consistently with how they have been treated\npreviously.\n Again, I urge support of this amendment we are currently debating,\nwhich will direct GAO to study our current and future aviation\nworkforce needs, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to\nthe amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment\noffered by the gentleman from Nebraska.\n This amendment would require the Comptroller General to conduct a\nstudy on the current and future supply of individuals for the U.S.\naviation workforce. The study would review the current state of our\naviation workforce as well as barriers to entry.\n A strong and robust aviation workforce will ensure the U.S. remains\nthe global leader and innovator in civil aviation; therefore, I support\nthis amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may\nconsume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this\namendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I agree with the ranking member, Mr. Larsen. This\namendment requesting the GAO study makes a lot of sense to me. The\noutlook of the future supply of individuals in the workforce, we know\nthere are some shortages out there. This report will inform us about\nthe current aviation workforce and needed actions to ensure we do have\nan adequate supply of workers in the future.\n Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and thank him\nfor offering this amendment, and I urge all Members to support it.\n Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment just asks\nthe Comptroller General to assess our current situation for aviation\nand pilot needs. Canceled flights have been a major problem for\ncommunities with the smaller airlines, and certainly we want to prevent\nsomething in a similar manner from impacting the larger airports around\nthe country as well.\n Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their\nsupport, and I urge others to support this amendment.\n I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the\ndesk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS.\n\n Section 134(d)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is\n amended by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Except with\n respect to a metropolitan planning organization whose\n structure consists of no local elected officials, nothing''.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.\n Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, since 1991, Federal law has\nstated that metropolitan planning organizations around the country\nshould have local elected officials on their boards.\n In 2012, Congress passed MAP-21 and included a clause stating that\nthese MPOs that were not in compliance had 2 years to conform.\n Now, in the previous administration, there was a Federal clause that\nwas used to grandfather the Twin Cities--Minneapolis-St. Paul--\nMetropolitan Council into compliance without having elected officials.\nSo we now have, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the only board in\nthe country that is entirely nonelected, the only MPO that has the\nauthority to independently raise taxes and is not elected.\n Indeed, in Minneapolis-St. Paul, our metropolitan planning\norganization has a budget that dwarfs all the others in the country. In\nfact, it is larger than Houston; Dallas; Atlanta; Los Angeles; Phoenix;\nSeattle; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Boston; Philadelphia; Denver;\nMiami; Tampa; and Chicago combined.\n Now, why does an entity of this magnitude not require local elected\nofficials?\n Now, I know some defending the status quo are now making misleading\nclaims about this amendment, about our efforts here in Congress.\n First, the Met Council does perform transportation work, and their\ntransportation advisory board does include elected officials. But the\nFederal Highway Administration and FTA ruled in 2015 that the TAB is an\nadvisory body to the council; it is not the MPO. Even the previous\nadministration, the Obama administration, disagreed with the Met\nCouncil's assertion that the TAB would be equivalent to a local elected\nofficial.\n Second, the defenders of the status quo are asserting that total\nchaos will ensue if this amendment passes. It will be a complete mess.\nEvery other MPO was either formed in compliance with elected officials,\nor local elected officials on its board, or it came into compliance\nwith this Federal law, and none gained widespread attention for chaos.\n The defenders of the status quo, including the current council and\neven the Governor of the State, now assert that, well, this is too\nuncertain, that chaos would ensue. I would argue that having a 17-\nmember board entirely appointed by the Governor is uncertainty.\nUncertainty is a board that changes course every time there is a new\nelection in the Governor's mansion.\n\n[[Page H3672]]\n\n Finally, the critics of my amendment have begun stirring up the\nmasses by saying this singlehandedly stops Federal funding for any\ntransportation project in the area, even up to $2 billion by 2021. But\nin the past, when other MPOs have come into compliance, it hasn't had\nthis effect. It simply hasn't happened. Besides, the congressional\nintent is that any MPO whose structure changes in order to adhere to\nFederal law will be given a transition period, a very generous one.\n The point is this amendment does not put in jeopardy any current or\nfuture Federal investments and grants. In fact, my colleagues and I\nfrom Minnesota have been working with the DOD to make certain our\nregion gets the Federal support we need. But it is vital, and it has\nbeen vital for years in our region, that we determine our own\ngovernance structure, that the local elected officials have a say.\n If the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council thinks it would take too\nlarge an effort to find common ground in order to pursue an MPO that\nhas elected officials, then that is the best indication that there is a\nserious problem with the status quo.\n Mr. Chairman, it is time to give citizens power over their regional\ngovernment. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve\nthe balance of my time.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the\namendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.\n Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns that he has with his local\nMPO. We all face our own challenges with local MPOs, but they are an\nimportant decisionmaking body that ensures local governments can take\nfull advantage of Federal transportation programs in a coordinated\nmanner.\n This amendment is attempting to break apart the operating structure\nof a local MPO, seemingly to punish it. It does not achieve the outcome\nthe gentleman is hoping to achieve except to create government\ndysfunction.\n I would also note that some frequently argue that local decisions\nshould be made by local decisionmakers. They say, ``Keep the Federal\nGovernment out of our business,'' except this amendment declares, if\nthe decisions are not made to the liking of one Federal official, he\ncan step in and blow up that local decisionmaking body.\n\n {time} 1545\n\n Mr. Chairman, I am urging my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this\namendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Lewis and I thank the gentleman\nfor offering this amendment. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations\nwere created to ensure that local officials drive the decisions about\nhow Federal and highway transit funds are spent. Unfortunately, for the\ngentleman's district, a loophole in the law undermines elected\nofficials.\n This amendment ensures the structure of MPOs can consist of locally\nelected officials. This is a fair and commonsense amendment, so I urge\nall Members to support this amendment.\n Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would note that of all of the\nopposition in this body, they are already in compliance with what I am\nproposing for the Metropolitan Council. So, clearly, it didn't induce\nchaos, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, we have no other speakers, and I\nurge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the\nbalance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Lipinski\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Add at the end of title V of the bill, the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. INTERLINING.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this\n Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue a final rule\n requiring an air carrier to seek, in the event of a delay\n exceeding 3 hours, cancellation, or misconnection as a result\n of circumstances or an event within an air carrier's control,\n as determined by the Secretary of Transportation, alternative\n transportation for displaced passengers, including aboard\n another air carrier capable of transporting the passenger to\n his or her originally scheduled destination, and to accept,\n for a reasonable fee, the passengers of another air carrier\n who have been displaced by circumstances or an event within\n that air carriers control, as determined by the Secretary of\n Transportation, or if the passenger has been involuntarily\n denied boarding due to a lack of available seats.\n\n SEC. 5__. IMPROVED ACCOMMODATION OF DISPLACED PASSENGERS.\n\n Not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act, the\n Secretary of Transportation shall modify part 259 of title\n 14, Code of Federal Regulations to include the following:\n (1) Adoption of plan.--Each covered carrier shall adopt a\n contingency plan for lengthy terminal delays for its\n scheduled flights at each large hub airport, medium hub\n airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport in the United\n States at which it operates or markets such air\n transportation service and shall adhere to its plan's terms.\n (2) Contents of plan.--Each contingency plan for any delay,\n cancellation, or misconnection, affecting a passenger who has\n been involuntarily denied boarding as a result of\n circumstances or an event within an air carrier's control, as\n determined by the Administration of the Federal Aviation\n Administration (except in the case in which the flight crew\n determines that a passenger poses a danger to the safety of\n the flight), shall include, at a minimum, the following:\n (A) Essential needs.--An air carrier shall ensure that\n essential needs, including food, water, restroom facilities,\n and assistance in the case of a medical emergency are met. If\n the only available seating on the carrier's next flight to\n the passenger's destination is a higher class of service than\n purchased, the carrier shall transport the passenger on the\n flight at no additional cost.\n (B) Meal voucher.--In the case of a delay exceeding 4\n hours, the air carrier shall provide a meal voucher or, if at\n the request of the passenger, cash equivalent to the value of\n a meal voucher. An air carrier shall not be liable to\n reimburse the passenger for expenses related to meals if the\n passenger did not accepted such compensation when offered.\n (C) Lodging, transportation, and other vouchers.--\n (i) In general.--In the case of a delay, cancellation, or\n misconnection as a result of circumstances or an event within\n an air carrier's control, as determined by the Secretary of\n Transportation, of which any portion exceeding 2 hours occurs\n between the period of time between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., local\n time, of the following day, and with no guarantee of\n reaccommodation aboard another flight to the passenger's\n destination within the following 2 hours after the initial 2-\n hour delay, an air carrier shall provide the passenger with\n lodging, transportation to and from the airport to the place\n of lodging, and meal expenses. At the request of the\n passenger, the carrier shall alternatively compensate such\n passenger with the cash equivalent to the value of the\n lodging, meals, and transportation, or a voucher of\n equivalent value for future travel on the carrier.\n (ii) Lodging unavailable.--If lodging is unavailable, an\n carrier shall compensate a passenger with the cash equivalent\n to the value of the lodging, meals, and transportation, or,\n at the request of the passenger, a voucher of equivalent\n value for future travel on the carrier.\n (iii) Proximity to residence.--The provisions of clauses\n (i) and (ii) shall not apply to a passenger whose permanent\n residence is 60 miles or less from the airport where such\n delay, cancellation, or misconnection occurred.\n (iv) Failure to accept initial compensation.--An air\n carrier shall not be liable to reimburse the passenger for\n expenses related to meals if the passenger did not accept\n such compensation when offered.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n Mr. Chairman, while we have had some good news that airlines have\nimproved their performance on various metrics in the past year,\npassengers continue to suffer frustrations.\n According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2017,\n285,000 flights were delayed due to circumstances within the airlines'\ncontrol. And last year, even though bumpings were down, over 23,000\nwere involuntarily denied boarding.\n When passengers are significantly delayed as a result of an event\nwithin the\n\n[[Page H3673]]\n\nairlines' control, it only makes sense that airlines be required to\naccommodate them better. But in a competitive climate where passengers'\nexpectation of service quality has declined significantly, the airlines\nwon't make these passenger-friendly changes, and that is why we need\nthis commonsense amendment.\n My amendment will require airlines to place a passenger who is\ndelayed more than 3 hours onto another carrier, if that would be the\nquickest way to get the passenger to their destination. This would\napply only to delays caused by an event within an air carrier's\ncontrol, as defined by the Secretary of Transportation.\n In order to make this easier for the airlines, it will require all\ncarriers to accept such rebookings for a reasonable fee. At one time,\nthis was a common practice. Some airlines still have these agreements--\ncalled interline agreements--with other airlines. And some have, in the\npast year, created new interline agreements. But many airlines still\nfall short and some require passengers to ask for this treatment in\norder to receive it.\n This amendment also requires airlines to ensure that passengers have\naccess to essential needs, such as medical care and restrooms, no\nmatter when or where a delay occurs. It requires meal vouchers to be\ngiven in the event of delays longer than 4 hours, and it requires hotel\naccommodations during lengthy overnight delays that occur between 10\np.m. and 3 a.m.\n These measures would go a long way to improving airline passenger\nprotections. In order to make sure that this is done in the best\npossible manner, the Secretary of Transportation will engage in a\nrulemaking process, giving the airlines and the flying public an\nopportunity to have input.\n Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the\namendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a re-regulation of the\nairlines that was soundly defeated in the Transportation and\nInfrastructure Committee. It would force airlines to interline, which\nrefers to agreements among airlines to carry each other's passengers.\nMost airlines already have interline agreements with other airlines,\nand the freedom to do so is important to preserve.\n Forcing all airlines unwilling into such deals will have unintended\nconsequences. Customers will be punished and forced to bear the burden\nof the service fares of other airlines. The problems caused by this\namendment would be most acute in smaller communities that have few\nflights per day.\n H.R. 4 includes provisions requiring air carriers to prominently\ndisclose to passengers what services will be offered in the event of\nwidespread disruption. The underlying bill contains a number of other\nconsumer protections that are widely supported by stakeholders and\nMembers alike.\n Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue,\nbut I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the\namendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. There is no doubt\nthat time and time again, the airlines have a lot of work to do in the\nrealm of customer service. With little competition in the U.S. airline\nindustry, airlines are no longer required to compete on the quality of\nservices they provide to consumers, yet, the industry has become the\nworld's most profitable due in large part to countless ancillary fees\nthey charge passengers.\n I believe certainly that more must be done to restore basic rights\nand fairness in air travel. However, the amendment, as drafted, does\ntake a one-size-fits-all approach to customer service that may not be\nappropriate for every situation.\n Before legislating prescriptive requirements for the airlines when\npassengers are displaced, I think the committee should hold additional\nhearings and study these issues more thoroughly. I hope we can agree on\nthat.\n A recent lesson learned was with the Department of Transportation\ntarmac delay rule, a rule with great intentions that had several\nunintended consequences, such as passengers becoming stranded overnight\nat diversion airports hundreds of miles from their destination.\nCongress had to mitigate some of these issues in the 2016 FAA\nextension.\n When we are proscriptive on the customer service front, we have to be\nsure we are getting it right. But I do want to thank Mr. Lipinski for\noffering this amendment. I hope he will continue to work with the\ncommittee to perfect it, but I stand in opposition to it.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Larsen for his\ncomments. I thank Chairman Shuster for his work on this bill. There are\nmany good provisions in this bill, one that has to do with disclosure.\n But it still does not give the flying public enough protection. That\nis why we need this amendment.\n This amendment has been endorsed by the Consumers Union, Travelers\nUnited, the Consumer Federation of America, and Flyers Rights.\n We expect when we buy a ticket on an airline that we will get that as\nquickly as possible. Glitches occur, but if it is something that is in\nthe control of the airline, I think we should expect to be put on\nanother airline to get to our destination as quickly as possible.\n Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield\nback the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois\nwill be postponed.\n\n Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Denham\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 5__. FEDERAL AUTHORITY.\n\n (a) In General.--Section 14501(c) of title 49, United\n States Code, is amended--\n (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''\n and inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';\n (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as\n paragraphs (3) through (6) respectively;\n (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:\n ``(2) Additional limitation.--\n ``(A) In general.--A State, political subdivision of a\n State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not\n enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having\n the force and effect of law prohibiting employees whose hours\n of service are subject to regulation by the Secretary under\n section 31502 from working to the full extent permitted or at\n such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any\n additional obligations on motor carriers if such employees\n work to the full extent or at such times as permitted under\n such section, including any related activities regulated\n under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.\n ``(B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this paragraph\n shall be construed to limit the provisions of paragraph\n (1).'';\n (4) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated) by striking\n ``Paragraph (1)--'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)--\n ''; and\n (5) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated) by striking\n ``Paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) and (2)''.\n (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section\n shall have the force and effect as if enacted on the date of\n enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration\n Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-305).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, real quickly, let me just explain what the\n\n[[Page H3674]]\n\nF4A Denham amendment does. This clarifies the intent of the 1994 FAA\nbill; thus, how it got its name, the F4A.\n It created one Federal regulatory standard for meal and rest breaks\nor hours of service for interstate freight and passenger motor\ncarriers. This was originally in the FAA bill of 1994. It also included\npiece rate.\n Now, we have passed this issue several times from the House over to\nthe Senate--a very good bipartisan bill--but while we have had great\nbipartisanship in the past, to get greater bipartisanship, and to work\nwith labor, we actually took out the piece rate issue.\n Now, this bill only deals with meal and rest--the same as that piece\nof it that was in 1994 where Congress, where this body actually\nreported out saying: ``State economic regulation of motor carrier\noperations causes significant inefficiencies, increased costs,\nreduction of competition, inhibition of innovation and technology, and\ncurtails the expansion of markets.''\n This is about interstate commerce, making sure that you can drive a\ntruck transporting goods from one State to another without having\nchallenges going from a patchwork of States across the entire country.\n We want these professional drivers to be safe, meaning if you get\ntired, take a break. What we don't want to do is say, at 2 hours, you\nneed to pull over immediately--on the bridge, on the highway, wherever\nyou are at, creating an unsafe condition.\n Stop at the rest stop. Stop at the truck stop. Stop when it is\nconvenient, when it is safe, and when you are tired.\n We want to give these professional drivers flexibility in interstate\ncommerce. That was in 1994. That was the law of the land until the U.S.\nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reconvened and changed some of\nthese motor carrier laws. The amendment and the Federal Standard only\napply to interstate. What you do in your own State is up to your State.\n But interstate, going across State lines, which the Constitution\nenumerated to the Federal Government in Article I, section 8, clause 3\nof the Commerce Clause. Interstate hours of service regulations would\ncontinue to be regulated by the States. But this has already been\nproven by the U.S. Department of Transportation who wrote the rule that\nthis is the safest way for interstate commerce.\n Mr. Chair, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman from California\n(Mr. Costa).\n Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for\nyielding.\n I rise today in support of this amendment offered by Mr. Denham, Mr.\nCuellar, and myself. Trucking companies and truck drivers are the\nbackbone of our Nation in terms of transportation, and certainly, much\nof the San Joaquin Valley that I represent.\n Agricultural products, fruits, nuts, and vegetables that are put on\nAmerican's dinner tables every night are grown in the San Joaquin\nValley, and they provide an important part of our sustenance.\n Many of these truckers have one or two trucks, and they are literally\nsmall-business people. Sadly, because of the recent court decisions\nthat were noted by the author of this amendment, these companies that\noperate across State lines have been exposed to unfair litigation that\nhave been costly, and I know of cases where major motor carriers have\ngone out of business because of this.\n The amendment would clarify that when operating across State lines,\nmeals and rest break requirements will be governed by Federal law, not\na patchwork of conflicting State laws. That just makes good common\nsense. This is consistent with action taken by the Congress--as was\nnoted--in 1994, to provide uniform rules across the country for safety\npurposes.\n Some of my colleagues have claimed time in opposition saying this\namendment would overturn protections like minimum wage and vacation.\nThis amendment in no way impacts minimum wage or vacation, or those\nissues that have been raised in this fashion. It is simply not true.\n This amendment, I believe, is prosafety, proworker, and proeconomy.\nThe fact is, we have been dealing with this issue for a number of\nyears, and it is time that we finally avoid the confusion and\nstrengthen this measure out.\n I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.\n Mr. Chair, I offered a narrow fix for this in what was true\ninterstate commerce because of the potential confusion between Federal\nhours of service and State hours of service, and that was rejected.\n\n {time} 1600\n\n This is an incredibly broad preemption. It is not as stated. For\ninstance, we just heard you have to pull over, no matter where you are.\nNo. If you don't take your rest break, you have to be paid, but you\ndon't have to stop and pull over.\n Beyond that, this would preempt paid rest breaks, paid meal breaks,\npaid sick leave, paid family leave, payment for time detained at a\nloading dock, payment for anything other than a flat rate by the load.\n This is an extraordinary preemption that we have here. The drivers\nare already exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. So they can't get\novertime. If we wipe out the State laws and there is no existing\nFederal law, truck drivers are really getting it stuck to them here.\n In fact, this amendment would expand Federal preemption over trucking\noperations to include, for the first time, wages and working\nconditions, something Congress never contemplated in 1994.\n It is opposed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,\nthe largest trucking organization; the Teamsters; American Association\nfor Justice; and numerous safety groups. This is not as it is being\npresented. This is overly broad, and it should be opposed.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nCalifornia (Mrs. Napolitano).\n Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Denham\namendment, which would overturn a Federal court decision that\ndetermined that California meal and rest break laws apply to truckers.\n On July 4, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that\ntrucking operators in California must allow for 30-minute meal breaks\nafter 5 hours of work and a 10-minute rest break after 4 hours worked.\nThis meal and rest break is very reasonable, when you consider that\ntruck drivers can be subject to 14 hours of on-duty time.\n This amendment would not only preempt California's law, but would\nalso preempt laws in 21 other States and territories that guarantee\nmeal and rest breaks.\n This amendment is further harmful as it includes broad preemption\nlanguage, as Mr. DeFazio stated, that would prohibit State and local\ngovernments from enacting laws that ``impose any additional obligation\non motor carriers.'' This preemption would attack State minimum wage\nlaws, sick leave laws, family leave laws, and other laws that protect\ntruck drivers' pay and benefits.\n Mr. Chairman, States should be allowed to set these important\nstandards for truck driver working conditions as they see fit for the\nhealth and safety of their workers and for our citizens.\n Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Denham amendment, and\nI include in the Record letters of opposition from the Teamsters,\nAmerican Association for Justice, Truck Safety Coalition and others,\nand the National Employment Law Project.\n\nTeamsters Letter Opposing Denham Amendment Regarding Truck Driver Wage\n and Benefit Laws\n\n This week, the US House of Representatives will consider\n legislation to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation\n Administration (FAA).\n The trucking industry is trying to hijack that bill. They\n want to insert language which takes away almost any\n protection truck drivers are granted under state law. This\n includes destroying the right to paid sick leave, paid\n vacations, FMLA, state guarantees of a lunch or rest break\n during a shift, and worse.\n The language states the following:\n ``A State, political sub-division of a State or political\n authority of 2 or more States\n\n[[Page H3675]]\n\n may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other\n provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting-\n employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by\n the Secretary under section 31502 from working to the full\n extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such\n section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor\n carriers if such employees work to the full extent or at such\n times as permitted under such section, including any related\n activities regulated, under part 395 of title 49, Code of\n Federal Regulations.''\n Say you're a trucking company who doesn't want a driver\n taking a few hours off for a doctor's appointment this week.\n Now you're in luck! Under this provision, the driver isn't\n working to the ``full extent permitted'' under the minimal\n federal rules, so they lose any state protections\n guaranteeing them the right to go to the doctor!\n What happens if that driver needs to take extended state-\n protected FMLA? Taking time off under state FMLA laws would\n mean that driver is not working to the ``full extent'' they\n otherwise could be under the federal rules, so it's not\n allowed!\n What if a state decides that a truck driver should get paid\n while they wait in line for hours on end to drop off their\n load? Well, that's an additional obligation being put on the\n employer, and that won't be allowed either!\n The House must not include this anti-safety, anti-worker\n provision in the FAA bill. This provision would overturn any\n state's law that goes above the bare minimum federal rules\n for truck drivers. No state could demand that drivers need to\n get paid for non-driving time or take action against\n companies who misclassify their drivers as independent\n contractors. Any state laws that raise wages or protect the\n working conditions of drivers would immediately be\n overturned. It refers to these state laws as ``additional\n burdens'' being placed on motor carriers and says that they\n need to be done away with. States couldn't even give drivers\n time off to go vote! What's worse, all these changes are made\n retroactive to 1994. All of the progress states have made\n over the past two decades would evaporate overnight.\n Truck crashes are up 45% from 2009. Injuries are up 57%,\n and deaths from those crashes are also up 28%. Now is not the\n time to push drivers even further by taking away protections\n that make sure they are well-rested and alert.\n We urge you to OPPOSE the Denham amendment (amendment #140\n as filed with the rules committee) if it comes up on the\n floor during consideration of the FAA bill H.R. 4.\n Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact\n me.\n Sincerely,\n\n Samuel P. Loesche,\n\n Legislative Representative,\n International Brotherhood of Teamsters.\n ____\n\n [From the American Association for Justice]\n\n Protect Truck Drivers and Highway Safety: Oppose Preemption of State\n Protections in the FAA Reauthorization\n\n AAJ strongly opposes the Denham amendment to H.R. 4, the\n FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This amendment preempts\n state and local labor regulations, laws, and court decisions,\n many of which have been on the books for decades, protecting\n commercial truck drivers. What was originally offered to just\n preempt state labor protections, commonly known as the ``meal\n and rest break'' protections, morphed into something much\n broader and much worse in that it now preempts ANY\n ``additional obligation on motor carriers.'' Therefore, this\n amendment will provide for a sweeping exemption for\n commercial trucking drivers from being covered by all state\n and local wage and hour laws, including, but not limited to\n meal and rest break laws, paid sick leave, minimum wage, sick\n pay, jury duty, disability and medical leave, and even\n worker's compensation laws.\n The Denham amendment would deny truck drivers, including\n many who exclusively work only within their home state, from\n state protections. Included in these protections is meal and\n rest break laws that allow truckers to take a lunch break\n and/or a rest break after driving on the road for a certain\n number of hours. In most cases, these breaks are no more than\n a ten-minute rest or a half hour lunch and often only occur\n when an employee works a full day, still allowing the\n employer the flexibility to determine when and how they are\n taken.\n Meal and rest break protections are especially important\n for highway safety. Commercial truck drivers are a class of\n workers whose fatigue has been a consistent and proven cause\n of highway injuries and deaths. Commercial truck drivers\n often operate trucks exceeding 26,000 pounds and typically\n work up to 14 hours a day, which puts other drivers and\n pedestrians at serious risk of injury or death. In fact,\n nearly 4,000 people die in large truck crashes each year,\n with driver fatigue being the leading cause.\n Protecting highway safety should be a top priority of\n Congress. Oppose the Denham Amendment.\n By preempting state laws that protect workers, this\n amendment should be opposed because of the following:\n The Denham amendment provides a sweeping exemption for\n motor carrier drivers from being covered by State and local\n wage and hour laws, including meal and rest break laws, paid\n sick leave, minimum wage, sick leave, jury duty, disability\n and medical leave, and even worker's compensation laws. It\n should be noted that the Federal government has NO policy on\n many of these protections including sick leave, paternity\n leave, or family leave meaning, that if these workers are\n exempt from coverage under State law, and there is no Federal\n law, they are left without any protections. In addition, the\n amendment prohibits any additional obligations on motor\n carrier employers--which gives these employers a blank check\n to continue the current unsustainable models of driver\n compensation and also pre-emptively stops any future reforms\n to improve driver wages and working conditions at the State\n and local level.\n This is a clear violation of states' rights. This amendment\n would eliminate each state's ability to protect their workers\n and citizens, an area which has historically been recognized\n as part of a state's police powers. Under the 10th amendment,\n there has always been a presumption against preemption of\n state laws that protect the welfare, safety and health of the\n public, including a state's labor laws. If this amendment is\n adopted, Congress would be overturning hundreds of state laws\n that have provided its workers, including truck drivers, with\n employee protections they need to carry out their work in a\n safe and productive manner.\n Congress has rejected numerous attempts to preempt similar\n state meal and rest protections in the past, repeatedly\n declining to overturn the ability of states to govern the\n work and safety conditions of their workers in this area. In\n addition, the Department of Transportation also opposed meal\n and rest break preemption in 2014, arguing that ``there is a\n presumption against preemption in areas of traditional State\n `police powers' or control, and that labor laws are a clear\n area of traditional State control. Currently, twenty states\n have versions of these types of protections on the books\n which would immediately be wiped out by this amendment,\n including laws in CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, KY, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV,\n NH, NY, ND, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, and WV.\n If preempting meal and rest break laws in twenty states was\n not bad enough, the new Denham amendment is broader,\n preempting state employment and labor laws in ALL 50 States.\n Some of the state laws that would be impacted by this overly\n broad amendment are: minimum wage, sick pay, jury duty,\n disability, medical leave and even worker's compensation\n laws. If this Denham amendment passes, truck drivers, who\n frequently avail themselves of worker's compensation benefits\n based on the precarious nature of their job, will no longer\n be covered by their state worker's compensation laws. This is\n an atrocious and unfair attack on one class of workers.\n Under Federal law there is no available remedy to a worker\n if a trucking company chooses to break the law and refuse a\n worker to take a meal or rest break. State laws, on the other\n hand, like the one in California, impose a monetary fine on\n the employer equal to one hour's pay if the employer violates\n the law. Therefore, if this amendment is adopted there will\n be no remedy and thus no incentive for trucking companies to\n allow drivers to take breaks, creating a serious public and\n highway safety issue. It should be noted that these breaks\n are not mandatory and are instead at the discretion of the\n individual driver.\n By eliminating the incentive for trucking companies to\n follow the law and allow their truckers to take breaks, this\n amendment would result in a greater likelihood of crashes due\n to fatigue. Nearly 4,000 people die in large truck crashes\n each year and driver fatigue is the leading cause. This\n amendment not only harms the safety of commercial truck\n drivers, but the motoring public and pedestrians at large.\n The amendment would also overturn state laws that require\n workers to be paid for all hours worked at the agreed upon\n minimum rate. Instead, companies would be allowed to only pay\n drivers for the time they spend driving, despite the fact\n that drivers are required to spend a great deal of time\n performing non-driving duties in the fulfillment of their\n employment such as pre and post trip inspections, maintenance\n and loading and unloading.\n The amendment would preempt state law that limits the\n number of hours a regulated driver may work including state\n disability discrimination and workers' compensation\n provisions where an employer has discretion to return a\n driver to work with limited work hours following an accident\n or illness. Moreover, the amendment would eliminate the right\n to take any leave under state versions of the Family and\n Medical Leave Act or allow reasonable accommodation to\n provide an employee time off of work for prayer or religious\n practice under state religious discrimination laws.\n The amendment applies retroactively: If wiping out worker\n and truck drivers' existing rights weren't bad enough, this\n amendment applies retroactively and would therefore wipe out\n lawsuits, settlements, and judgments won by truck drivers for\n employer violations going back to 1994. That's 23 years of\n jurisprudence and judgments that held trucking companies\n accountable for breaking the law and violating their\n employees' rights. The retroactivity provision is an affront\n to states' rights and state courts.\n\n[[Page H3676]]\n\n ____\n April 18, 2018.\n Re Preemption of State Rights in FAA Reauthorization.\n\n Hon. Members of the House,\n House of Representatives,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned\n organizations, we write to remind you of our continued\n opposition to the inclusion of any language in the FAA\n reauthorization bill that would preempt state regulations\n that protect commercial drivers. These essential,\n longstanding laws were specifically designed to reduce worker\n fatigue and to protect workers and the public from workplace\n crashes, injuries, and deaths.\n As you know, previous Congresses have rejected such\n preemption language, commonly known as the ``meal and rest\n break'' provision, time after time because it would overturn\n the ability of states to govern the working conditions of\n their truck drivers. This amendment would deny truck drivers,\n including many who never leave that state, from taking the\n lunch break and/or a rest break which they are granted under\n state law. In most cases, these breaks are no more than a\n ten-minute rest break or a half hour break for lunch. They\n often only occur when an employee works a full day and the\n employer typically retains flexibility to determine the\n manner in which their employees take these breaks. Twenty\n states have versions of these laws on the books which would\n immediately be upended, including laws in CA, CO, CT, DE, IL,\n KY, ME, MA, MN, NE, NV, NH, NY, ND, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, and\n WV.\n In addition to being bad policy, Congress has not had a\n single public hearing on this issue or any meaningful\n discussion and analysis of its merits. This fundamental\n change to surface transportation policy clearly falls within\n the jurisdiction of a surface transportation bill, and yet it\n was rejected during the last highway bill. It has no place in\n any legislation reauthorizing of the FAA.\n We urge you to continue to reject any language overturning\n basic state protections for truck drivers as you consider FAA\n reauthorization legislation. We greatly appreciate your\n support for protecting American workers and look forward to\n working with you to safeguard these important state laws.\n Sincerely,\n The International Brotherhood of Teamsters;\n American Association for Justice;\n Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association;\n Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety;\n Truck Safety Coalition;\n Road Safe America;\n Parents Against Tired Truckers;\n Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways;\n Center for Auto Safety;\n Consumer Federation of America;\n Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;\n SMART-TD (UTU);\n KidsAndCars.org;\n Trauma Foundation.\n ____\n\n National Employment Law Project\n\n Vote ``NO'' on Denham Amendment to H.R. 4\n Congressman Denham has introduced an amendment to the\n Federal Aviation Administrative Authorization Act, (FAAAA)\n that would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing any law\n or regulation that imposes on interstate motor carriers any\n obligation beyond that covered in the so-called ``hours of\n service'' regulations under federal law.\n The amendment provides that ``A State, political sub-\n division of a State, or political authority of 2 or more\n States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other\n provision having the force and effect of law prohibiting\n employees whose hours of service are subject to regulation by\n the Secretary under section 31502 from working to the full\n extent permitted or at such times as permitted under such\n section, or imposing any additional obligations on motor\n carriers. . . .'' While the amendment specifically overrules\n state rest and meal breaks provisions, its broad language\n would reach even farther and deny truck drivers the\n protections of a wide range of state and local labor\n standards that have protected them for decades.\n The bill represents an enormous overreach by the federal\n government and overrules decades of court precedents\n confirming that truck drivers are entitled to basic minimum\n and prevailing wages, paid sick days, and to be properly\n classified as employees. It would carve truck drivers out of\n traditional workplace protections like unemployment\n compensation and workers' compensation as well as more recent\n standards that states and localities, have seen fit to afford\n their residents.\n This big government overreach is the latest phase of the\n corporate ``preemption'' strategy, backed by industry front\n groups like ALEC and conservative donors like the Koch\n Brothers, that seeks to go over the heads of state and local\n governments to roll back a wide range of broadly popular\n worker protections. This sweeping rollback would reverse that\n eighty years of worker protections and leave truck drivers\n more vulnerable to long hours and abusive working conditions.\n Here are some examples of how the law would affect millions\n of truck drivers across the country:\n Workers compensation and truck safety. Truck drivers have\n the highest number and rate of fatal occupational injuries of\n any occupation in the United States. They also have the\n second highest rate of all occupations for non-fatal serious\n injuries and illnesses. Yet this amendment would deny\n workers' compensation benefits to all drivers and deny states\n the right to establish safety and hazardous cargo controls,\n under the guise of providing uniform federal law.\n Minimum wage. At a time when Congress has kept the federal\n minimum wage frozen at just $7.25 since 2009, more and more\n states have been stepping in to fill the void. Currently, 31\n states and more than 40 localities have approved minimum wage\n increases above the current federal level of $7.25, affecting\n the pay of 15 million workers. But the amendment would strip\n truck drivers of these minimum wage protections.\n Independent contractor abuses. Worker misclassification is\n a pressing issue for truck drivers across the country, and\n across the country, courts and administrative agencies are\n finding, applying state laws, that truck drivers have been\n illegally treated as independent contractors by the\n companies. The amendment would reverse these decisions and\n allow companies to continue to violate the law.\n Paid family leave and paid sick days. Currently, the\n District of Columbia, 9 states (Connecticut, California,\n Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Arizona, Washington, Rhode\n Island and Maryland) and dozens of local jurisdictions extend\n paid sick leave to workers. And California, New Jersey, New\n York and Washington State provide paid family leave to\n workers in those states. The amendment would take away that\n benefit from truck drivers in some of the highest trucking-\n dependent states in the country.\n\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains\non each side?\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes remaining.\nThe gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, Mr. DeFazio has said this\nis very broad. It is very, very succinct. Title 49, section 31502 is\nthe law. The regulation is 40 CFR 395.\n This is very, very tight compared to 1994, when the Democrats had\ncontrol of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Mr. DeFazio,\nthankfully, supported it back then as a very broad measure dealing with\nall of these different issues. Now we are just dealing with meal and\nrest breaks only.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from\nTexas (Mr. Cuellar) on this very bipartisan measure.\n Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, again, overall, I want to thank Chairman\nShuster and the ranking member for bringing the FAA bill in. But I also\nsupport the Denham-Costa amendment because, again, it is a narrow fix\non this, and it is only dealing with the interstate itself.\n Again, this is a bill that we want to provide some sort of uniformity\non. And that is all we are asking for is uniformity. If it crosses\nState lines, we are asking for that type of uniformity. Again, in the\nindustry, those drivers cross State lines multiple times per day.\n So I would ask that you support the Denham-Costa amendment.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from\nVirginia (Mr. McEachin).\n Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.\n Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to preempt important State-level\nprotections that help ensure truck drivers are treated fairly and that\nthey are able to do their jobs safely.\n This language would not just erase existing meal and rest break\nrequirements for truckers, it would affect all State and local wage and\nhour laws, with adverse implications for everything from workers'\ncompensation to the minimum wage. Such changes would be deeply harmful,\nand I urge my colleagues to oppose them.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n If you simply pick up a load in the Port of Los Angeles and drive 10\nmiles, that is deemed interstate commerce.\n The problem I was trying to solve with a narrow amendment version was\nto say if someone is coming in from Nevada, crosses the State line,\nthere would be confusion. That is truly interstate commerce.\n What would apply?\n The Federal hours of service, State hours of service, et cetera.\n There could be a narrow fix to this issue. This is a preemption. If\nyou read the law, basically, from working to the full extent permitted\nor at such times as permitted under such section, or imposing any\nadditional obligations on motor carriers if such employees work to the\nfull extent or at such times as permitted under such section.\n\n[[Page H3677]]\n\n So this would be a preemption in all 50 States of whatever additional\nconditions they have put in place.\n Many truck drivers are horribly abused already. We have done away\nwith detention time, and we have put time limits on when they can\ndrive, for safety reasons. They are sitting at some warehouse facility\nfor hours, earning nothing, unless we can have States with additional\nlaws. If we aren't going to have Federal detention time, perhaps States\ncan help with these problems. We do not want abused, tired truck\ndrivers out on the road. We want them to be able to earn a living wage.\n I have met with drivers out of the port numerous times who are in\nthese endless deals to theoretically buy their truck that they never\nget to buy, and some of them are not even taking home $100 a week and\nworking many, many hours. We need to stop these abuses. This is only\ngoing to make things worse.\n Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance\nof my time.\n Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from California (Mr. Denham).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California\nwill be postponed.\n\n Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer\n\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my\nrequest for a recorded vote on amendment No. 67 to the end that the\nChair put the question de novo.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).\n The amendment was rejected.\n\n Amendment No. 81 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment\nat the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n At the end of title V, insert the following:\n\n SEC. ___. STUDY.\n\n (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United\n States shall begin a study of international air cargo\n services among the United States and Central American, South\n American, and Caribbean Basin countries, that--\n (1) analyzes the supply of and demand for air cargo\n transportation services among the United States and Central\n American, South American, and Caribbean Basin countries;\n (2) analyzes the supply of and demand for air cargo\n transportation services between--\n (A) the United States, Central American, South American,\n and Caribbean Basin countries; and\n (B) Africa and Europe;\n (3) identifies the busiest routes in terms of cargo\n capacity and frequency of air service;\n (4) identifies any air carrier or foreign air carrier hubs\n in Central American, South American, and Caribbean Basin\n countries at which a significant amount of air cargo is\n sorted, handled, or consolidated for transportation to or\n from the United States;\n (5) identifies any air carrier or foreign air carrier hubs\n in the United States at which a significant amount of air\n cargo is sorted, handled, or consolidated for transportation\n to or from Central American, South American, and Caribbean\n Basin countries.\n (6) identifies any significant gaps in the air cargo\n services or cargo air carrier networks--\n (A) among the countries described in paragraph (2)(A);\n (B) between such countries and Africa; and\n (C) between such countries and Europe; and\n (7) assesses the possible impact of the establishment of an\n air carrier hub in Puerto Rico at which air cargo is sorted,\n handled, or consolidated for transportation to or from the\n United States, including the impact on--\n (A) the employment rate and economy of Puerto Rico;\n (B) domestic and foreign air transportation of cargo;\n (C) United States competitiveness in the air transportation\n of cargo;\n (D) air cargo operations at other airports in the United\n States; and\n (E) domestic air carrier employment.\n (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit\n to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the\n House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,\n Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the\n results of the study described in subsection (a).\n (c) Definition.--The term ``Caribbean Basin countries'' has\n the same meaning given the term ``Caribbean Basin country''\n in section 501 of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1737).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman\nfrom Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and a Member opposed each will\ncontrol 5 minutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.\n Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in\nsupport of H.R. 4 and, of course, the amendment that I am supporting\nand sponsoring today. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for providing me\nthe opportunity to speak on behalf of this simple yet very important\namendment that Congressman Don Young has joined me in sponsoring.\n A lack of reliable data on which Congress can make informed decisions\nis a recurring problem for Puerto Rico. The bipartisan Congressional\nTask Force on Economic Growth in Puerto Rico, established by PROMESA,\nunanimously recognized this problem, back in 2016, and made numerous\nrecommendations that were designed to include Puerto Rico in Federal\nstatistical programs.\n My amendment to H.R. 4 is consistent with the Task Force's\nrecommendations to remove regulatory burdens inhibiting commerce\nbetween Puerto Rico, the U.S. mainland, and international markets.\n Puerto Rico needs to reactivate and diversify its economic base in\norder to emerge not just from the current disaster situation, but to\nhave stable, long-term economic growth.\n My amendment simply seeks to evaluate Puerto Rico's potential as an\nair cargo hub and to obtain recommendations as to how to best achieve\nthat potential. It does not change the current statutory regime over\nair cargo operations on the island. It simply seeks to provide the hard\ndata required to make a sound decision about it.\n It provides for evaluating the competitive situation in the Caribbean\nregion, not just relative to Puerto Rico, but to other foreign and\ncontinental U.S. airport hubs serving it so that it also serves to\nprovide a better picture for the overall future competitive environment\nin the region.\n Puerto Rico has the necessary infrastructure in three international-\ncapable airports with ample space and ports. The island also has a\nprivileged geographic location that gives it high potential as a cargo\nhub between the Caribbean and northern South America, Europe, and\nAfrica, as well as being at the southeasternmost corner of the U.S.\ndomestic air transportation network.\n The Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the largest business and\nemployer organization on the island, supports this amendment and the\npotential development of the island as an air cargo hub. The island's\npharmaceutical manufacturers would also benefit from Puerto Rico\nbecoming an air cargo hub.\n Mr. Chairman, it is the private sector and private investments that\nwill play the leading role in rebuilding our island's economy. This is\nnow, more than ever, critical as we continue to recover in the\naftermath of the hurricanes.\n The island of Puerto Rico's jobs are American jobs, and we look for\nnew opportunities to grow our economy. This amendment will provide the\ndata to evaluate what would be the capacity for developing this kind of\nbusiness activity and what its potential impact would be on the local\nand national economy.\n I want to thank Chairmen Shuster and LoBiondo for their support and\nguidance, and I urge that this amendment be adopted as part of this\nreauthorization bill.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n[[Page H3678]]\n\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in\nopposition, but I do support the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Without objection, the\ngentleman is recognize for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the\namendment offered by the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.\n This amendment requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office, or\nthe GAO, study air cargo traffic in the Caribbean, including an\nassessment and data collection. This data and assessment are needed to\nhelp assess Puerto Rico's role as a cargo hub for international\ntraffic. I look forward to seeing what the GAO reports.\n Therefore, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to\nsupport it.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n\n {time} 1615\n\n Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, this bill will\nprovide data that is important for the due recognition in terms of the\ncapabilities of the island for the near future, and I hope this bill\nwill pass and give Puerto Rico the opportunities we need to fulfill the\nopportunities in the region and the States.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mrs. Comstock\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. SPACEPORTS.\n\n (a) Sense of Congress on State Spaceport Contributions.--It\n is the Sense of Congress that--\n (1) State government-owned and -operated spaceports have\n contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure\n improvements to the national space launch infrastructure,\n providing the United States Government and commercial\n customers with world-class space launch and processing\n infrastructure that is necessary to support continued\n American leadership in space;\n (2) State spaceports play a critical role in providing\n resiliency and redundancy in the national launch\n infrastructure to support national security and civil\n government capabilities, and should be recognized as a\n critical infrastructure in Federal strategy and planning;\n (3) continued State and local government investments at\n Federal and non-Federal launch facilities should be\n encouraged and to the maximum extent practicable supported in\n Federal policies, planning and infrastructure investment\n considerations, including through Federal-State partnerships;\n (4) there is currently no Federal infrastructure investment\n program funding or encouraging State and local government\n investment in spaceport infrastructure, unlike Federal grant\n programs to encourage continued investment in all other modes\n of transportation, including aviation, highways, ports, and\n rail, which limits opportunities for the Federal government\n to leverage and coordinate infrastructure investments with\n State and local governments;\n (5) Federal investments in space infrastructure should\n enable partnerships between Federal agencies with state\n spaceports to modernize and enable expanded 21st century\n space transportation infrastructure, especially multi-modal\n networks needed for robust space transportation that support\n national security, civil, and commercial launch customers;\n and\n (6) States that have made investments to build, maintain,\n operate, and improve capabilities for national security,\n civil, and commercial customers should be commended for their\n infrastructure contributions to both Federal and non-Federal\n launch sites, and encouraged through a variety of programs\n and policies to continue these investments in the national\n interest.\n (b) Establishment of Office of Spaceports.--\n (1) Establishment of office of spaceports.--Title 51,\n United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of\n subtitle V the following:\n\n ``CHAPTER 515--OFFICE OF SPACEPORTS\n\n``Sec.\n``51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports.\n\n ``Sec. 51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports\n\n ``(a) Establishment of Office.--Not later than 90 days\n after the date of enactment of this section, the\n Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall\n identify, within the Office of Commercial Space\n Transportation, a centralized policy office to be known as\n the Office of Spaceports.\n ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Office of Spaceports\n shall be to support, promote, and enable infrastructure\n improvements at Federal Aviation Administration-licensed\n spaceports in the United States.\n ``(c) Functions.--The Office of Spaceports shall--\n ``(1) support licensing activities for launch sites;\n ``(2) develop and implement policies that promote\n infrastructure improvements at licensed public launch sites;\n ``(3) provide technical assistance, guidance, and support\n to licensed public spaceports;\n ``(4) promote United States licensed spaceports within the\n Department; and\n ``(5) strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in launch\n infrastructure and increase resilience for the Federal\n Government and commercial customers.\n ``(d) Recognition.--In carrying out the functions assigned\n in subsection (c), the Secretary shall recognize the unique\n needs and distinctions of spaceports that--\n ``(1) launch to orbit; and\n ``(2) are involved in suborbital launch activities.\n ``(e) Director.--The Associate Administrator for Commercial\n Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall designate a Director of the Office of Spaceports.\n ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:\n ``(1) The term `spaceport' means a launch site that is\n licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration.\n ``(2) The term `public spaceport' means a launch site that\n is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration and is\n owned or operated by a State or local governmental entity,\n including political subdivisions of a State or local\n government.''.\n (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of\n chapters of title 51, United State Code, is amended by adding\n at the end of subtitle V the following:\n\n``515. Office of Spaceports................................51501''.....\n\n (c) Report on National Spaceports Policy.--\n (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:\n (A) A robust network of space transportation\n infrastructure, including spaceports licensed by the Federal\n Aviation Administration, is vital to the growth of the\n domestic space industry and America's competitiveness and\n access to space.\n (B) Non-Federal spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation\n Administration have significantly increased the launch\n infrastructure of the United States through significant\n investments by State and local governments, which have\n encouraged greater private investment.\n (C) These spaceports have led to the development of a\n growing number of orbital and suborbital launch sites that\n are available to the national security, civil, and commercial\n space customers at minimal cost to the Federal Government.\n (D) The Federal Government, led by the Secretary of\n Transportation, should seek to promote the growth,\n resilience, and capabilities of this space infrastructure\n through policies and through partnerships with State and\n local governments.\n (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall\n submit to Congress a report that--\n (A) evaluates the Federal Government's national security\n and civil space launch demands and the needs of the United\n States and international commercial markets;\n (B) proposes policies and programs designed to ensure a\n robust and resilient orbital and suborbital spaceport\n infrastructure to serve and capitalize on these launch\n opportunities;\n (C) reviews the development and investments made by\n international competitors in foreign spaceports;\n (D) makes recommendations on how the Federal Government can\n support, encourage, promote, and facilitate greater\n investments in infrastructure at public spaceports licensed\n by the Federal Aviation Administration; and\n (E) considers and makes recommendations about how\n spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration\n can fully support and enable the national space policy.\n (3) Updates to the report.--Not later than 3 years after\n the date of enactment of this Act and every 2 years\n thereafter, the Secretary shall--\n (A) update the previous report prepared under this\n subsection; and\n (B) submit the updated report to Congress.\n (4) Consultations required.--In preparing the reports\n required by this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with\n individuals including--\n (A) the Secretary of Defense;\n (B) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and\n Atmospheric Administration;\n (C) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space\n Administration; and\n (D) interested persons at spaceports, State and local\n governments, and industry.\n (d) Report on Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching\n Grants.--\n (1) GAO study and report.--The Comptroller General of the\n United States shall conduct a study regarding spaceport\n activities carried out pursuant to chapters 509 and 511 of\n title 51, United States Code, including--\n (A) an assessment of potential mechanisms to provide\n Federal support to spaceports, including the airport\n improvement program\n\n[[Page H3679]]\n\n established under subchapter I of chapter 471 of title 49,\n United States Code, and the program established under chapter\n 511 of title 51, United States Code;\n (B) recommendations for potential funding options,\n including funds that may be collected from launch providers\n or launch customers; and\n (C) any necessary changes to improve the spaceport\n application review process.\n (2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study described in\n paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with\n sources from each component of the launch process, including\n interested persons in industry and government officials at\n the Federal, State, and local levels.\n (3) User-funded spaceports.--In reviewing funding options,\n the Comptroller General shall distinguish between spaceports\n that are funded by users and those that are not.\n (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit\n to Congress a report containing results of the study\n conducted under paragraph (1).\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman\nfrom Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.\n\n Modification to Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mrs. Comstock\n\n Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my\namendment No. 84 be modified in the manner that I have placed at the\ndesk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.\n The Clerk read as follows:\n Modification to amendment No. 84 printed in part A of House Report\n115-650 offered by Mrs. Comstock:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. SPACEPORTS.\n\n (a) Sense of Congress on State Spaceport Contributions.--It\n is the Sense of Congress that--\n (1) State government-owned and -operated spaceports have\n contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure\n improvements to the national space launch infrastructure,\n providing the United States Government and commercial\n customers with world-class space launch and processing\n infrastructure that is necessary to support continued\n American leadership in space;\n (2) State spaceports play a critical role in providing\n resiliency and redundancy in the national launch\n infrastructure to support national security and civil\n government capabilities, and should be recognized as a\n critical infrastructure in Federal strategy and planning;\n (3) continued State and local government investments at\n Federal and non-Federal launch facilities should be\n encouraged and to the maximum extent practicable supported in\n Federal policies, planning and infrastructure investment\n considerations, including through Federal-State partnerships;\n (4) there is currently no Federal infrastructure investment\n program funding or encouraging State and local government\n investment in spaceport infrastructure, unlike Federal grant\n programs to encourage continued investment in all other modes\n of transportation, including aviation, highways, ports, and\n rail, which limits opportunities for the Federal government\n to leverage and coordinate infrastructure investments with\n State and local governments;\n (5) Federal investments in space infrastructure should\n enable partnerships between Federal agencies with state\n spaceports to modernize and enable expanded 21st century\n space transportation infrastructure, especially multi-modal\n networks needed for robust space transportation that support\n national security, civil, and commercial launch customers;\n and\n (6) States that have made investments to build, maintain,\n operate, and improve capabilities for national security,\n civil, and commercial customers should be commended for their\n infrastructure contributions to both Federal and non-Federal\n launch sites, and encouraged through a variety of programs\n and policies to continue these investments in the national\n interest.\n (b) Establishment of Office of Spaceports.--\n (1) Establishment of office of spaceports.--Title 51,\n United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of\n subtitle V the following:\n\n ``CHAPTER 515--OFFICE OF SPACEPORTS\n\n``Sec.\n``51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports.\n\n ``Sec. 51501. Establishment of Office of Spaceports\n\n ``(a) Establishment of Office.--Not later than 90 days\n after the date of enactment of this section, the\n Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall\n identify, within the Office of Commercial Space\n Transportation, a centralized policy office to be known as\n the Office of Spaceports.\n ``(b) Functions.--The Office of Spaceports shall--\n ``(1) support licensing activities for launch sites;\n ``(2) develop policies that promote infrastructure\n improvements at licensed public launch sites;\n ``(3) provide technical assistance and guidance to licensed\n public spaceports;\n ``(4) promote United States licensed spaceports within the\n Department; and\n ``(5) strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in launch\n infrastructure and increase resilience for the Federal\n Government and commercial customers.\n ``(c) Recognition.--In carrying out the functions assigned\n in subsection (b), the Secretary shall recognize the unique\n needs and distinctions of spaceports that--\n ``(1) launch to orbit; and\n ``(2) are involved in suborbital launch activities.\n ``(d) Director.--The Associate Administrator for Commercial\n Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall designate a Director of the Office of Spaceports.\n ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:\n ``(1) Spaceport.--The term `spaceport' means a launch site\n that is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration.\n ``(2) Public spaceport.--The term `public spaceport' means\n a launch site that is licensed by the Federal Aviation\n Administration and is owned or operated by a State or local\n governmental entity, including political subdivisions of a\n State or local government.''.\n (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of\n chapters of title 51, United State Code, is amended by adding\n at the end of subtitle V the following:\n\n``515. Office of Spaceports................................51501''.....\n\n (c) Report on National Spaceports Policy.--\n (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:\n (A) A robust network of space transportation\n infrastructure, including spaceports licensed by the Federal\n Aviation Administration, is vital to the growth of the\n domestic space industry and America's competitiveness and\n access to space.\n (B) Non-Federal spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation\n Administration have significantly increased the launch\n infrastructure of the United States through significant\n investments by State and local governments, which have\n encouraged greater private investment.\n (C) These spaceports have led to the development of a\n growing number of orbital and suborbital launch sites that\n are available to the national security, civil, and commercial\n space customers at minimal cost to the Federal Government.\n (D) The Federal Government, led by the Secretary of\n Transportation, should seek to promote the growth,\n resilience, and capabilities of this space infrastructure\n through policies and through partnerships with State and\n local governments.\n (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall\n submit to Congress a report that--\n (A) evaluates the Federal Government's national security\n and civil space launch demands and the needs of the United\n States and international commercial markets;\n (B) proposes policies and programs designed to ensure a\n robust and resilient orbital and suborbital spaceport\n infrastructure to serve and capitalize on these launch\n opportunities;\n (C) reviews the development and investments made by\n international competitors in foreign spaceports;\n (D) makes recommendations on how the Federal Government can\n support, encourage, promote, and facilitate greater\n investments in infrastructure at public spaceports licensed\n by the Federal Aviation Administration; and\n (E) considers and makes recommendations about how\n spaceports licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration\n can fully support and enable the national space policy.\n (3) Updates to the report.--Not later than 3 years after\n the date of enactment of this Act and every 2 years\n thereafter, the Secretary shall--\n (A) update the previous report prepared under this\n subsection; and\n (B) submit the updated report to Congress.\n (4) Consultations required.--In preparing the reports\n required by this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with\n individuals including--\n (A) the Secretary of Defense;\n (B) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and\n Atmospheric Administration;\n (C) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space\n Administration; and\n (D) interested persons at spaceports, State and local\n governments, and industry.\n (d) Report on Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching\n Grants.--\n (1) GAO study and report.--The Comptroller General of the\n United States shall conduct a study regarding spaceport\n activities carried out pursuant to chapters 509 and 511 of\n title 51, United States Code, including--\n (A) an assessment of potential mechanisms to provide\n Federal support to spaceports, including the airport\n improvement program established under subchapter I of chapter\n 471 of title 49, United States Code, and the program\n established under chapter 511 of title 51, United States\n Code;\n (B) recommendations for potential funding options,\n including funds that may be collected from launch providers\n or launch customers; and\n (C) any necessary changes to improve the spaceport\n application review process.\n\n[[Page H3680]]\n\n (2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study described in\n paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with\n sources from each component of the launch process, including\n interested persons in industry and government officials at\n the Federal, State, and local levels.\n (3) User-funded spaceports.--In reviewing funding options,\n the Comptroller General shall distinguish between spaceports\n that are funded by users and those that are not.\n (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit\n to Congress a report containing results of the study\n conducted under paragraph (1).\n\n Mrs. COMSTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous\nconsent that the modification be considered as read.\n The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from Virginia?\n There was no objection.\n The ACTING Chair. Is there objection to the original request of the\ngentlewoman from Virginia?\n There was no objection.\n The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.\n Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment reflects several\npolicy recommendations that have been proposed in various forms over\nthe last several years, including Representative Bridenstine's Space\nRenaissance Act.\n State spaceports have become increasingly important elements of our\nnational space launch infrastructure, with States like Virginia,\nFlorida, and Alaska contributing hundreds of millions in infrastructure\nimprovements to launch sites to better support NASA, DOD, and\ncommercial launch.\n State spaceports like the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops\nIsland in Virginia, which launches Orbital ATK's Antares and Minotaur\nrockets, have provided new, low-cost capabilities for NASA, Defense,\nand commercial users, while also improving resiliency and\nresponsiveness. The recent NASA Reauthorization Act, which passed the\nHouse Science Committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote last week,\nincluded language urging NASA to fully leverage such State spaceport\ninvestments to meet infrastructure demands to support national\nmissions.\n As we now consider this FAA Reauthorization Act, it is also important\nto note that the FAA currently plays a critical role in licensing and\nworking with these spaceports as they grow their infrastructure and\ncapabilities to support a variety of missions. This amendment will help\nrecognize the important role of these spaceports to our national launch\ninfrastructure, establish an office of spaceports to better coordinate\nlicensing, policy, and technical support for spaceports, as well as\ndirect two important reports--one by the Secretary of Transportation\nand another by GAO--to address policy issues facing spaceports in our\ngrowing launch market.\n The amendment is supported by a bipartisan group of my colleagues\nfrom Virginia, Maryland, and Florida and is supported by Virginia\nSpace, Space Florida, and the National Association of Spaceports, among\nothers.\n I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in\nopposition, even though I support the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for\n5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment being\noffered by the gentlewoman from Virginia.\n This amendment would create within the FAA Commercial Space\nTransportation Office an office of spaceports, a centralized policy\noffice that will support and promote infrastructure improvements at\nFAA-licensed spaceports.\n This amendment also requires a report to Congress evaluating the\nFederal Government's national security and civil space launch demands,\nand offers recommendations on how we can further support and promote\ngreater investment in commercial space infrastructure. It also requires\nthe Comptroller General to study spaceport activities in the U.S.\n Commercial space transportation and enabled industries includes\nsatellite and ground equipment manufacturing, satellite services and\nremote sensing, and distribution industries. In 2015, the size of the\nglobal space industry was estimated to be $335 billion; the size of the\nU.S. space industry was approximately $126 billion, which includes $89\nbillion in revenues generated by satellite services, manufacturing,\nground equipment, and launch services.\n The commercial launch of satellites is particularly important as\nthese technologies offer us a range of services from television and\nradio broadcasts to high-speed internet and weather forecasting.\n This amendment will strengthen the Nation's competitiveness in this\nnascent industry and offer us a better understanding of how we can\nmaintain a robust and resilient network of space transportation\ninfrastructure.\n Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge my colleagues to support this\namendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment, and I\nyield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,\noffered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).\n The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Lynch\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. INSTALLATION OF OVERFLIGHT NOISE MITIGATION DEVICES.\n\n To reduce the impact of overflight noise on local\n communities, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall engage and cooperate with air carriers\n to identify and facilitate opportunities for the air carriers\n to retrofit aircraft with devices that mitigate noise,\n including vortex generators.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.\n Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and\nRanking Member DeFazio for their hard work, and also Mr. Larsen as\nwell.\n I have to confess that mentally in my mind I have a list of\nRepublicans I wish wouldn't run for office again, but I am proud and\nhappy to say that, Mr. Shuster, you are not on that list. I just want\nto congratulate you on your good work not only on this bill, but in the\npast on a lot of issues that affect not only the constituents in your\ndistrict, but also people across this country. Thank you for your\nservice.\n I was hoping that I might come to the floor today to talk about ways\nthat we might prevent terrorists and criminal organizations from\nregistering aircraft in the United States. There is a Department of\nTransportation Inspector General report that is well known to Members\nhere that basically lays out the case for more closely scrutinizing the\nregistration of U.S. aircraft. They came up with a few glaring examples\nthat I will mention here.\n Recently, it was discovered that Hezbollah, through a front person,\nalso from Lebanon, registered an aircraft here in the United States\nwith no landing permit. In addition, we had another aircraft registered\nthrough the FAA through Wells Fargo Bank, which we understand was\nlocated in Tripoli International Airport in Libya, with no landing\npermit, just hours before the U.N. Security Council met to approve a\nno-fly zone over that country.\n Similarly, we had an aircraft owned by the brother of Ghana's\npresident but registered by the Bank of Utah, which mysteriously\nappeared in Tehran, Iran, in 2014, bearing an American flag emblem.\nThis occurred, obviously, in the midst of U.S. and international\nsanctions. Prohibiting the travel of U.S. aircraft to Iran was the law\nat that point. The FAA could not explain who was operating the plane or\nwho owned it, and the lack of transparency and accountability in the\nFAA's registration system is a serious national security threat.\n Now, there was a time when Democrats and Republicans could work on\namendments like that and they would\n\n[[Page H3681]]\n\nbe accepted. I am still mystified as to where the opposition came from.\n Also, public health and safety demands that the FAA take immediate\nsteps to mitigate the impact of concentrated flight paths which come in\nand out of major airports around the country. They have got a new\nsystem called a NextGen RNAV system that concentrates the flights over\nvery narrow strips of neighborhoods and in the areas adjacent to those\nairports. And we can do a lot, Mr. Chairman, to mitigate that damage.\nBut that is not in this bill.\n What I am here to talk about is retrofitting aircraft with noise\nmitigation devices known as vortex generators. These devices are\nlightweight and divert wind from the vents on the underside of an\naircraft's wing to significantly reduce noise during descent. European\ncarriers such as Lufthansa, British Airways, and Air France have\nalready adapted their older Airbus aircraft with these devices, and new\nmodels now come equipped with them. My amendment, which is cosponsored\nby several of my colleagues on the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus,\nwould ensure that American air carriers are following suit.\n I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this\namendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the\namendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and, actually, my\nclassmate, Mr. Lynch. You, myself, and Joe Wilson are the last of the\nspecial election eight that came in 2001, so with me leaving, it will\njust be up to you and Joe Wilson. But I appreciate working with you.\n I appreciate the intent of your amendment. Again, I reluctantly\noppose it because of my high regard for you and the work you have done\nhere. I might add too that what you are talking about, the\nregistration--your amendment, I am familiar with it; I think it might\nhave had some unintended consequences. But I also believe that what\nthey do in Oklahoma City at the registry would put some language in\nthis bill to change that process out there. I intend to go out and see\nit firsthand, because there are problems out there with the way they\noperate out there in Oklahoma City. Again, I understand what you are\ntalking about.\n But I do rise, reluctantly, to oppose the amendment. The amendment\nwould require the FAA to undertake a very unclear task, I believe,\nfacilitating opportunities for air carriers to install noise reduction\ndevices. If you come onto the House floor with an FAA bill, the number\none amendment that we have--many, many amendments that we have deal\nwith noise. So it is a problem out there. But the air carriers do have\nan incentive to, again, operate and reduce the noise of their aircraft,\nand each new generation of aircraft continues to reduce the noise.\n I know that in Connecticut, I believe, Briggs & Stratton has a\nfacility up there, United Technologies, and they were talking about a\njet engine that will reduce noise by as much as 70 percent. Again,\ntechnology. A lot of smart people are out there trying to figure out\ninnovative ways to reduce noise on these aircraft. Having the FAA\ninvolved in these air carrier business decisions, I believe, would\nstifle the innovation and would set back that development.\n But again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I am well aware\nof the issue. I at this point would urge my colleagues to oppose the\namendment.\n Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the\ngentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the\namendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.\n It would direct the FAA to engage and cooperate with airlines to\nidentify and facilitate opportunities for them to retrofit their\naircraft with devices that mitigate noise. Air traffic noise is an\nextremely important issue to those who live in communities surrounding\nour airports. This noise can be destructive to the well-being of the\nresidents of these communities. This amendment would go a long way\ntoward mitigating future noise issues around our airports.\n I support this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.\n Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).\n The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes\nappeared to have it.\n Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further\nproceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from\nMassachusetts will be postponed.\n\n {time} 1630\n\n Amendment No. 88 Offered by Ms. Meng\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 88\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. GLOBAL-SCALE PROBABILISTIC CONVECTION GUIDANCE.\n\n The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration\n shall develop global-scale probabilistic convection guidance\n capability.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman\nfrom New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.\n Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple one. The entire\ntext reads as follows:\n\n The FAA Administrator shall develop global-scale\n probabilistic convection guidance capability.\n\n In plain English, this means that the FAA would be required to\ndevelop the capability to predict where convection occurs so that\naircraft can avoid it, if possible.\n Atmospheric convection is thought to induce a significant proportion\nof turbulence experienced by commercial aircraft, and that turbulence,\neven if only moderate, can lead to passenger and crew injuries and can\nresult in high insurance costs for airlines.\n The FAA has been doing a commendable job of developing the capability\nto produce probabilistic forecasts of domestic oceanic convection over\na 36-hour timeframe, but work remains to be done to improve this\ncapability globally.\n The FAA would like to pursue further work in this area and has the\nhope of possibly achieving this capability by the end of 2020. In order\nto support this effort, I believe Congress should fully authorize the\ndevelopment of this important capability, and after doing so, it should\nadequately appropriate funds to accomplish the mission. Should this\namendment pass today, I am committed to fully supporting the FAA's work\nin this arena through my seat on the Appropriations Committee.\n I know we would all like a smooth flight in and out of D.C. each\nweek. Let's extend that possibility as often as possible to the\nAmerican public seeking to cross an ocean or other continents on their\ntravels. If you want your constituents to have smoother flights, I urge\nyou to vote in favor of this amendment.\n Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5\nminutes.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this\namendment, but I do oppose it.\n This amendment would require the FAA to develop a global-scale\nguidance system related to convection activity. The FAA already has\nextensive resources for obtaining necessary weather information for\nsafe flight operations, including thunderstorm information, lightning,\nand so on. Additionally, the FAA is currently engaged in such weather-\nmodeling development and is actively working towards deploying such\ncapability in the future.\n However, this amendment will likely require significant budgetary\nresources\n\n[[Page H3682]]\n\nfrom both the FAA and NOAA, and, unfortunately, the brevity of this\namendment and the lack of details results in a vague mandate that may\ndistract the FAA and NOAA from their ongoing efforts. If the intent is\nto improve forecasting efforts, then let's not distract them from those\nefforts they are currently involved in.\n For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to oppose the amendment,\nand I yield back the balance of my time.\n Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).\n The amendment was rejected.\n\n Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Zeldin\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. __. MANDATORY USE OF THE NEW YORK NORTH SHORE HELICOPTER\n ROUTE.\n\n (a) Public Comment Period.--\n (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation\n Administration shall provide notice of, and an opportunity\n for, at least 60 days of public comment with respect to the\n regulations in subpart H of part 93 of title 14, Code of\n Federal Regulations.\n (2) Timing.--The public comment period required under\n paragraph (1) shall begin not later than 30 days after the\n date of enactment of this Act.\n (b) Public Hearing.--Not later than 30 days after the date\n of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall hold a\n public hearing in the communities impacted by the regulations\n described in subsection (a)(1) to solicit feedback with\n respect to the regulations.\n (c) Review.--Not later than 30 days after the date of\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate a\n review of the regulations described in subsection (a)(1) that\n assesses the--\n (1) noise impacts of the regulations for communities,\n including communities in locations where aircraft are\n transitioning to or from a destination or point of landing;\n (2) enforcement of applicable flight standards, including\n requirements for helicopters operating on the relevant route\n to remain at or above 2,500 feet mean sea level; and\n (3) availability of alternative or supplemental routes to\n reduce the noise impacts of the regulations, including the\n institution of an all water route over the Atlantic Ocean.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.\n Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my bipartisan\namendment to address the deeply flawed North Shore Helicopter Route,\nwhich is impacting communities throughout Long Island, especially my\nconstituents on the North Fork.\n The FAA's North Shore Helicopter Route, which was made mandatory\nthrough an FAA bureaucratic edict in 2010, represents everything that\nis wrong with our unaccountable Federal bureaucracy. It lacks fairness,\ntransparency, and common sense. It is not a bright idea to mandate\naircraft traffic bound for the tip of an island to make its transition\nover land when multiple all-water routes which mitigate the noise\nimpact are available.\n In addition to being ill-conceived and misguided, what makes this FAA\nmandate so extremely unfair is that it shifts the majority of air\ntraffic in the area over Long Island's North Fork, which does not have\na busy airport or helicopter pad, and, thus, doesn't get any of the\neconomic benefit that the air traffic brings to neighboring communities\non the South Fork that have an active seasonal airport.\n To close these loopholes and address this unfairness, I offer this\ncritical amendment that will force the FAA to reassess the North Shore\nHelicopter Route and work on replacing it with a true all-water route\nover the Atlantic Ocean.\n This amendment also requires the FAA to hold public hearings on the\nNorth Shore Helicopter Route in the communities impacted by this flawed\nroute and open up a public comment period so the people who live with\naircraft noise season after season can have a voice.\n The FAA has, for years, ignored my constituents and the law since\nlong before I was even in Congress. By continuing to extend the North\nShore Helicopter Route through emergency authority, the FAA has been\nwaiving the requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act and other\nFederal laws and regulations that require public comment and the\nconsultation of the impacted local governments before any major\nregulatory decisions are made.\n I represent a district that is almost completely surrounded by water,\nso it is common sense that aircraft departing New York City bound for\nairports on the East End of Long Island can reduce noise by following\ntrue all-water routes.\n My amendment also requires the FAA to enforce its own rules regarding\naltitude restrictions for the aircraft following this flawed route.\nThis is not just an issue in my district, but also impacts residents\nwho are impacted by noise in Nassau County and Queens. That is why I\nhave partnered with my Democratic colleagues, Representatives Grace\nMeng and Tom Suozzi, on this amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this\namendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.\n Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the\namendment offered by the gentleman from New York.\n This amendment directs the FAA Administrator to offer a public\ncomment period and public hearing with respect to the New York North\nShore Helicopter Route and would then be required to review the\napplicable regulations related to the route and assess the noise\nimpacts on communities and the availability of alternative or\nsupplemental routes to reduce those impacts.\n I oppose it on the grounds that it is really not good policy to\nlegislate on noise in a piecemeal fashion, addressing each region and\neach airport one by one. That is not the best way to address air\ntraffic noise. The community has been aware of this issue for some time\nand certainly of the occasionally unreasonable exposure to helicopter\nnoise reported by residents in urban areas.\n The Aviation Subcommittee held a roundtable on this in October of\n2011 to explore this issue, and perhaps it is time to re-up that\nroundtable to get some movement on this issue.\n Further, I have concern about possible unintended consequences of\nlegislative proposals that could lead to the redistribution of aircraft\nnoise. Although well-intentioned, such proposals have social justice\nramifications and often can end up distributing noise over socially\neconomically disadvantaged communities. We have to make sure that noise\nis distributed equitably if we are going to make these decisions.\n I would be happy to work, and I think on our side we would be happy\nto work with the gentleman and the cosponsors to try to address these\nconcerns by talking directly with the FAA, but I have to oppose taking\nthe solution towards a legislative resolution.\n I ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my\ntime.\n Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, first off, with respect to my colleague on\nthe other side of the aisle, it is very important for my constituents\nto have a voice.\n What is important to note here is that this route was extended by the\nFAA, put in the Federal Register, in the middle of a weekend. No one\ntold me. No one told any of the local governments. There was no public\nhearing. There were no public comments accepted. Actually, the FAA, in\nthis case, went out of their way to ensure that my constituents had\nzero voice whatsoever. That is under the current Federal law.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman\nfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Transportation and\nInfrastructure Committee.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and\nrise in support of his amendment.\n Again, this amendment does address the concerns of the people on Long\nIsland. As the gentleman pointed out, this was put in place without\npublic comment, without talking to the folks that live and have to live\nunder these\n\n[[Page H3683]]\n\noverflights, so I applaud him for his efforts and commitment to his\nconstituents on this issue. Again, he has worked tirelessly for the\nlast two Congresses on this issue and been a tremendously effective\nadvocate.\n\n I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership, and I thank him\nfor his amendment and encourage Members to support Mr. Zeldin's\namendment.\n Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of\nthis amendment, for doing everything in his power to ensure that my\nconstituents have a voice, that they are heard, that they are\nrepresented, that they are able to provide their public comments, that\nthey are allowed to have a hearing with the FAA. It really is very much\nappreciated by the residents of my district.\n And to my colleagues, Congresswoman Grace Meng, Congressman Suozzi,\nfor everyone on the other side of the aisle who is showing leadership\nin supporting this effort, it is much appreciated, understanding that\nthis was literally jammed through, in the Federal Register, without all\nsorts of not just courtesies provided, but worse, actually muzzling the\nvoice of the people that they couldn't even share any--any--of their\ncomments whatsoever.\n Summer after summer, the quality of life of East End residents has\nsuffered due to the persistent issue of this noise. The FAA and\nDepartment of Transportation have sole jurisdiction over the aircraft\nroutes that have impacted these communities, but from the route's\nplanning to its continued use, they have flat out ignored the residents\ndirectly affected. I am urging all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on\nthis amendment.\n Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence\n\n The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97\nprinted in part A of House Report 115-650.\n Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.\n The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.\n The text of the amendment is as follows:\n\n Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:\n\n SEC. 543. STUDY ON DIVERSITY OF CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE OF\n FAA.\n\n (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the\n enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal\n Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with\n the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the\n diversity of the cybersecurity workforce of the\n Administration in order to develop recommendations to\n increase the size, quality, and diversity of such workforce,\n including cybersecurity researchers and specialists.\n (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the\n completion of the study conducted under subsection (a), the\n Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation\n and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the\n Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n Senate a report on the results of such study.\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentlewoman\nfrom Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5\nminutes.\n The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.\n Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that\nwill direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,\nFAA, to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences\nto conduct a study on the diversity of the cybersecurity workforce of\nthe FAA in order to develop recommendations to increase the size,\nquality, and diversity of such workforce.\n Every day, Federal departments and agencies across our Nation face a\nbarrage of cybersecurity attacks that threaten our national and\neconomic security. An attack in 2006 forced the U.S. Federal Aviation\nAdministration to shut down one of its air traffic control systems in\nAlaska. Another attack that possibly involved malicious hacking and\nphishing targeted 75 airports in the United States in 2013.\n Now, in recent years, the FAA has taken concrete steps to improve\ncybersecurity protection mechanisms; however, Congress needs to ensure\nthat the FAA has the ability and resources to implement cybersecurity\nprotocols across all segments of the National Airspace System.\n The mission of the FAA is ``to provide the safest, most efficient\naerospace system in the world,'' and one of the five values of the\nagency to execute on that mission includes, in their vision statement:\n``People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect,\ndiversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.''\n\n {time} 1645\n\n According to CyberSeek, a national program of National Institute of\nStandards and Technology in the Department of Commerce, in 2017, the\nU.S. employed nearly 800,000 people in cybersecurity positions.\nHowever, that same report goes on to add that approximately 350,000\njobs remain open in the cybersecurity space.\n To ensure that FAA continues to safeguard the world's safest and most\nproductive aviation sector, Congress needs to ensure that the FAA has\nall of the tools necessary to ready its workforce.\n According to the FAA 2015 Performance and Accountability Report, the\nagency has over 45,000 employees who have diverse educational and\ncareer backgrounds. So when we look at our air traffic controllers,\nresearchers, maintenance specialists, safety inspectors, and mechanical\nand electrical software engineers, innovative solutions to national\ncybersecurity challenges will come from a diversity of perspectives.\n That is why my amendment will study the needs of the existing\ncybersecurity workforce of the FAA, and help identify and address any\ngaps that exist, and ensure that the size, quality, and diversity of\nsuch workforce at the FAA keep pace with the rapid technological\nadvancements in the aviation sector.\n I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio for\ntheir strength and their leadership. And I want to thank Chairman\nShuster for his leadership and emphasis on skills development and\ntraining.\n Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I\nreserve the balance of my time.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I\ndo not oppose the amendment.\n The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania\nis recognized for 5 minutes.\n There was no objection.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this\namendment. It is a good amendment. The cybersecurity workforce will\nplay a greater role in the aviation industry in the years ahead.\n Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to support Mrs.\nLawrence's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.\n Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague on the other side\nof the aisle for his support.\n Our skilled trained workforce is one of the greatest challenges we\nhave in America in supplying a workforce that is going to address the\nskilled needs of our workforce. If we don't address it and be\nproactive, it is going to be creating a challenge not only to filling\njobs, but creating the workforce that will get the job done.\n Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, and I\nyield back the balance of my time.\n The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the\ngentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).\n The amendment was agreed to.\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings\nwill now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report\n115-650 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following\norder:\n Amendment No. 42 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.\n Amendment No. 60 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.\n Amendment No. 63 by Mr. King of Iowa.\n Amendment No. 78 by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois.\n Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Denham of California.\n Amendment No. 87 by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.\n The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any\nelectronic vote after the first vote in this series.\n\n[[Page H3684]]\n\n Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. DeFazio\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon\n(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which\nthe noes prevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,\nnoes 223, not voting 13, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 155]\n\n AYES--192\n\n Adams\n Aguilar\n Barragan\n Bass\n Beatty\n Bera\n Beyer\n Bishop (GA)\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bonamici\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Burgess\n Bustos\n Butterfield\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Cardenas\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Castro (TX)\n Chu, Judy\n Cicilline\n Clark (MA)\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Cleaver\n Clyburn\n Connolly\n Cooper\n Correa\n Costa\n Courtney\n Crist\n Crowley\n Cuellar\n Cummings\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DeLauro\n DelBene\n Demings\n DeSaulnier\n Deutch\n Dingell\n Doggett\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Ellison\n Engel\n Eshoo\n Espaillat\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Fitzpatrick\n Foster\n Frankel (FL)\n Fudge\n Gabbard\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Gomez\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Gottheimer\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Grijalva\n Gutierrez\n Hanabusa\n Hastings\n Heck\n Higgins (NY)\n Himes\n Hoyer\n Huffman\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jeffries\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Joyce (OH)\n Kaptur\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n Kind\n Krishnamoorthi\n Lamb\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lieu, Ted\n Lipinski\n LoBiondo\n Loebsack\n Lowenthal\n Lowey\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n Lynch\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Maloney, Sean\n Massie\n Matsui\n McCollum\n McEachin\n McGovern\n McKinley\n McNerney\n Meeks\n Meng\n Moore\n Moulton\n Murphy (FL)\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Nolan\n Norcross\n O'Halleran\n O'Rourke\n Pallone\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Payne\n Pelosi\n Perlmutter\n Peterson\n Pingree\n Pocan\n Polis\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Raskin\n Rice (NY)\n Richmond\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Rosen\n Roybal-Allard\n Ruppersberger\n Rush\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sarbanes\n Schakowsky\n Schiff\n Schneider\n Schrader\n Scott (VA)\n Scott, David\n Serrano\n Shea-Porter\n Sherman\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (WA)\n Soto\n Speier\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Takano\n Thompson (CA)\n Thompson (MS)\n Titus\n Tonko\n Torres\n Tsongas\n Upton\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Vela\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Walden\n Walz\n Wasserman Schultz\n Waters, Maxine\n Watson Coleman\n Welch\n Yarmuth\n\n NOES--223\n\n Abraham\n Aderholt\n Allen\n Amash\n Amodei\n Arrington\n Babin\n Bacon\n Banks (IN)\n Barletta\n Barr\n Barton\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (MI)\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Bost\n Brady (TX)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Bucshon\n Budd\n Byrne\n Calvert\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Coffman\n Cohen\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Cook\n Costello (PA)\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Culberson\n Curbelo (FL)\n Curtis\n Davidson\n Davis, Rodney\n Denham\n Dent\n DeSantis\n DesJarlais\n Diaz-Balart\n Donovan\n Duffy\n Duncan (SC)\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Emmer\n Estes (KS)\n Faso\n Ferguson\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Fortenberry\n Foxx\n Frelinghuysen\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Garrett\n Gianforte\n Gibbs\n Gohmert\n Goodlatte\n Gosar\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Graves (MO)\n Griffith\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Handel\n Harper\n Harris\n Hartzler\n Hensarling\n Herrera Beutler\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Hill\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hudson\n Huizenga\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, Sam\n Jones\n Jordan\n Katko\n Kelly (MS)\n Kelly (PA)\n King (IA)\n King (NY)\n Kinzinger\n Knight\n LaHood\n LaMalfa\n Lamborn\n Lance\n Latta\n Lewis (MN)\n Long\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n MacArthur\n Marchant\n Marino\n Marshall\n Mast\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McClintock\n McHenry\n McMorris Rodgers\n McSally\n Meadows\n Meehan\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Moolenaar\n Mooney (WV)\n Mullin\n Newhouse\n Norman\n Nunes\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Palmer\n Paulsen\n Pearce\n Perry\n Peters\n Pittenger\n Poe (TX)\n Poliquin\n Posey\n Ratcliffe\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (SC)\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rohrabacher\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Roskam\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Royce (CA)\n Ruiz\n Russell\n Rutherford\n Sanford\n Scalise\n Schweikert\n Scott, Austin\n Sensenbrenner\n Sessions\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Simpson\n Sinema\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (TX)\n Smucker\n Stefanik\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Taylor\n Tenney\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Trott\n Turner\n Valadao\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walters, Mimi\n Weber (TX)\n Webster (FL)\n Wenstrup\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wilson (SC)\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (AK)\n Young (IA)\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--13\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Gowdy\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL)\n\n {time} 1716\n\n Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Messrs. McHENRY, HILL, GOODLATTE,\nSTEWART, BRADY of Texas, COHEN, GOHMERT, and GRAVES of Georgia changed\ntheir vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''\n Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. CORREA, KIHUEN, and\nSERRANO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''\n So the amendment was rejected.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The Chair advises all\nMembers to stay close to the floor. The next series of votes will be a\n2-minute vote. Please stay close to the floor.\n\n Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California\n(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on\nwhich the noes prevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 37,\nnoes 375, not voting 16, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 156]\n\n AYES--37\n\n Aderholt\n Bass\n Beyer\n Brady (TX)\n Calvert\n Davidson\n Duncan (SC)\n Garrett\n Gohmert\n Harris\n Higgins (NY)\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Kelly (MS)\n LaMalfa\n Lamborn\n Lieu, Ted\n Lowenthal\n Lynch\n McClintock\n Moolenaar\n Peterson\n Poe (TX)\n Posey\n Raskin\n Rohrabacher\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Royce (CA)\n Schiff\n Schweikert\n Sherman\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Taylor\n Walters, Mimi\n Webster (FL)\n Wilson (SC)\n\n NOES--375\n\n Abraham\n Adams\n Aguilar\n Allen\n Amash\n Amodei\n Arrington\n Babin\n Bacon\n Banks (IN)\n Barletta\n Barr\n Barragan\n Barton\n Beatty\n Bera\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (GA)\n Bishop (MI)\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bonamici\n Bost\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Bucshon\n Budd\n Burgess\n Bustos\n Butterfield\n Byrne\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Cardenas\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Castro (TX)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Chu, Judy\n Clark (MA)\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Cleaver\n Clyburn\n Coffman\n Cohen\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Connolly\n Cook\n Cooper\n Correa\n Costa\n Courtney\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Crist\n Crowley\n Cuellar\n Culberson\n Cummings\n Curbelo (FL)\n Curtis\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n Davis, Rodney\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DeLauro\n DelBene\n Demings\n Denham\n Dent\n DeSantis\n DeSaulnier\n DesJarlais\n Deutch\n Diaz-Balart\n Dingell\n Doggett\n Donovan\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Duffy\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Ellison\n Emmer\n Engel\n Eshoo\n Espaillat\n Estes (KS)\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Faso\n Ferguson\n Fitzpatrick\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Fortenberry\n Foster\n Foxx\n Frankel (FL)\n Frelinghuysen\n Fudge\n Gabbard\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Gianforte\n Gibbs\n\n[[Page H3685]]\n\n Gomez\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Goodlatte\n Gosar\n Gottheimer\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Graves (MO)\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Griffith\n Grijalva\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Hanabusa\n Handel\n Harper\n Hartzler\n Hastings\n Heck\n Hensarling\n Herrera Beutler\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Hill\n Himes\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hoyer\n Hudson\n Huffman\n Huizenga\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jeffries\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Johnson, Sam\n Jones\n Jordan\n Joyce (OH)\n Kaptur\n Katko\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kelly (PA)\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n Kind\n King (IA)\n King (NY)\n Kinzinger\n Knight\n Krishnamoorthi\n LaHood\n Lamb\n Lance\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Latta\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lewis (MN)\n Lipinski\n LoBiondo\n Loebsack\n Long\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lowey\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n MacArthur\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Maloney, Sean\n Marchant\n Marino\n Marshall\n Massie\n Mast\n Matsui\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McCollum\n McEachin\n McGovern\n McHenry\n McKinley\n McMorris Rodgers\n McNerney\n McSally\n Meadows\n Meehan\n Meeks\n Meng\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Mooney (WV)\n Moore\n Moulton\n Mullin\n Murphy (FL)\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Newhouse\n Nolan\n Norcross\n Norman\n Nunes\n O'Halleran\n O'Rourke\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Pallone\n Palmer\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Paulsen\n Payne\n Pearce\n Pelosi\n Perlmutter\n Perry\n Peters\n Pingree\n Pittenger\n Pocan\n Poliquin\n Polis\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Ratcliffe\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (NY)\n Rice (SC)\n Richmond\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Rosen\n Roskam\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Roybal-Allard\n Ruiz\n Ruppersberger\n Rush\n Russell\n Rutherford\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sanford\n Sarbanes\n Scalise\n Schakowsky\n Schneider\n Schrader\n Scott (VA)\n Scott, Austin\n Scott, David\n Sensenbrenner\n Serrano\n Sessions\n Shea-Porter\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Simpson\n Sinema\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (TX)\n Smith (WA)\n Smucker\n Soto\n Speier\n Stefanik\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Takano\n Tenney\n Thompson (CA)\n Thompson (MS)\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Titus\n Tonko\n Torres\n Trott\n Tsongas\n Turner\n Upton\n Valadao\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Vela\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walden\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walz\n Wasserman Schultz\n Waters, Maxine\n Watson Coleman\n Weber (TX)\n Welch\n Wenstrup\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yarmuth\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (AK)\n Young (IA)\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--16\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Cicilline\n Costello (PA)\n Gowdy\n Gutierrez\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.\n\n {time} 1720\n\n Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''\n So the amendment was rejected.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.\nKing) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes\nprevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,\nnoes 243, not voting 13, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 157]\n\n AYES--172\n\n Abraham\n Aderholt\n Allen\n Amash\n Arrington\n Babin\n Banks (IN)\n Barr\n Barton\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Brady (TX)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Budd\n Burgess\n Byrne\n Calvert\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Coffman\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Culberson\n Curtis\n Davidson\n Dent\n DeSantis\n DesJarlais\n Duncan (SC)\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Estes (KS)\n Ferguson\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Fortenberry\n Foxx\n Frelinghuysen\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Garrett\n Gibbs\n Gohmert\n Goodlatte\n Gosar\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Griffith\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Handel\n Harper\n Harris\n Hartzler\n Hensarling\n Herrera Beutler\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Hill\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hudson\n Huizenga\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson, Sam\n Jones\n Jordan\n Kelly (MS)\n King (IA)\n Knight\n LaMalfa\n Lamborn\n Latta\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n Marchant\n Marshall\n Massie\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McClintock\n McHenry\n McMorris Rodgers\n McSally\n Meadows\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Moolenaar\n Mooney (WV)\n Mullin\n Norman\n Nunes\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Palmer\n Paulsen\n Pearce\n Perry\n Pittenger\n Poe (TX)\n Poliquin\n Posey\n Ratcliffe\n Rice (SC)\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rohrabacher\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Royce (CA)\n Russell\n Rutherford\n Sanford\n Scalise\n Schweikert\n Sensenbrenner\n Sessions\n Simpson\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (TX)\n Smucker\n Taylor\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Trott\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walters, Mimi\n Weber (TX)\n Webster (FL)\n Wenstrup\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wilson (SC)\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (IA)\n\n NOES--243\n\n Adams\n Aguilar\n Amodei\n Bacon\n Barletta\n Barragan\n Bass\n Beatty\n Bera\n Beyer\n Bishop (GA)\n Bishop (MI)\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bonamici\n Bost\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Bucshon\n Bustos\n Butterfield\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Cardenas\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Castro (TX)\n Chu, Judy\n Cicilline\n Clark (MA)\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Cleaver\n Clyburn\n Cohen\n Connolly\n Cook\n Cooper\n Correa\n Costa\n Costello (PA)\n Courtney\n Crist\n Crowley\n Cuellar\n Cummings\n Curbelo (FL)\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n Davis, Rodney\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DeLauro\n DelBene\n Demings\n Denham\n DeSaulnier\n Deutch\n Diaz-Balart\n Dingell\n Doggett\n Donovan\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Duffy\n Ellison\n Emmer\n Engel\n Eshoo\n Espaillat\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Faso\n Fitzpatrick\n Foster\n Frankel (FL)\n Fudge\n Gabbard\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Gianforte\n Gomez\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Gottheimer\n Graves (MO)\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Grijalva\n Gutierrez\n Hanabusa\n Hastings\n Heck\n Higgins (NY)\n Himes\n Hoyer\n Huffman\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jeffries\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Joyce (OH)\n Kaptur\n Katko\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kelly (PA)\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n Kind\n King (NY)\n Kinzinger\n Krishnamoorthi\n LaHood\n Lamb\n Lance\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lewis (MN)\n Lieu, Ted\n Lipinski\n LoBiondo\n Loebsack\n Long\n Lowenthal\n Lowey\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n Lynch\n MacArthur\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Maloney, Sean\n Marino\n Mast\n Matsui\n McCollum\n McEachin\n McGovern\n McKinley\n McNerney\n Meehan\n Meeks\n Meng\n Moore\n Moulton\n Murphy (FL)\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Newhouse\n Nolan\n Norcross\n O'Halleran\n O'Rourke\n Pallone\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Payne\n Pelosi\n Perlmutter\n Peters\n Peterson\n Pingree\n Pocan\n Polis\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Raskin\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (NY)\n Richmond\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Rosen\n Roskam\n Roybal-Allard\n Ruiz\n Ruppersberger\n Rush\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sarbanes\n Schakowsky\n Schiff\n Schneider\n Schrader\n Scott (VA)\n Scott, Austin\n Scott, David\n Serrano\n Shea-Porter\n Sherman\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Sinema\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (WA)\n Soto\n Speier\n Stefanik\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Takano\n Tenney\n Thompson (CA)\n Thompson (MS)\n Titus\n Tonko\n Torres\n Tsongas\n Turner\n Upton\n Valadao\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Vela\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Walden\n Walz\n Wasserman Schultz\n Waters, Maxine\n Watson Coleman\n Welch\n Yarmuth\n Young (AK)\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--13\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Gowdy\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL)\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.\n\n[[Page H3686]]\n\n {time} 1727\n\n Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to\n``no.''\n So the amendment was rejected.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Lipinski\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois\n(Mr. Lipinski) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which\nthe noes prevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92,\nnoes 323, not voting 13, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 158]\n\n AYES--92\n\n Aguilar\n Barragan\n Bass\n Beatty\n Beyer\n Bonamici\n Bustos\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Castro (TX)\n Chu, Judy\n Clark (MA)\n Cleaver\n Connolly\n Cooper\n Crist\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n DeLauro\n DeSaulnier\n Deutch\n Doggett\n Ellison\n Eshoo\n Fortenberry\n Gabbard\n Gohmert\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Grijalva\n Gutierrez\n Harris\n Herrera Beutler\n Huffman\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jones\n Kaptur\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kind\n Kinzinger\n Lieu, Ted\n Lipinski\n Loebsack\n Lowenthal\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n Lynch\n Matsui\n McCollum\n McGovern\n Moore\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Nolan\n O'Rourke\n Perlmutter\n Peters\n Peterson\n Pingree\n Pocan\n Polis\n Posey\n Raskin\n Rohrabacher\n Ruiz\n Rush\n Schakowsky\n Schiff\n Schneider\n Scott (VA)\n Scott, Austin\n Shea-Porter\n Sherman\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (WA)\n Soto\n Speier\n Takano\n Thompson (CA)\n Tonko\n Tsongas\n Vela\n Walz\n Waters, Maxine\n Wilson (SC)\n Yarmuth\n\n NOES--323\n\n Abraham\n Adams\n Aderholt\n Allen\n Amash\n Amodei\n Arrington\n Babin\n Bacon\n Banks (IN)\n Barletta\n Barr\n Barton\n Bera\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (GA)\n Bishop (MI)\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bost\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brady (TX)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Bucshon\n Budd\n Burgess\n Butterfield\n Byrne\n Calvert\n Cardenas\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Cicilline\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Clyburn\n Coffman\n Cohen\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Cook\n Correa\n Costa\n Costello (PA)\n Courtney\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Crowley\n Cuellar\n Culberson\n Cummings\n Curbelo (FL)\n Curtis\n Davidson\n Davis, Rodney\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DelBene\n Demings\n Denham\n Dent\n DeSantis\n DesJarlais\n Diaz-Balart\n Dingell\n Donovan\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Duffy\n Duncan (SC)\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Emmer\n Engel\n Espaillat\n Estes (KS)\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Faso\n Ferguson\n Fitzpatrick\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Foster\n Foxx\n Frankel (FL)\n Frelinghuysen\n Fudge\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Garrett\n Gianforte\n Gibbs\n Gomez\n Goodlatte\n Gosar\n Gottheimer\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Graves (MO)\n Griffith\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Hanabusa\n Handel\n Harper\n Hartzler\n Hastings\n Heck\n Hensarling\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Higgins (NY)\n Hill\n Himes\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hoyer\n Hudson\n Huizenga\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jeffries\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Johnson, Sam\n Jordan\n Joyce (OH)\n Katko\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kelly (MS)\n Kelly (PA)\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n King (IA)\n King (NY)\n Knight\n Krishnamoorthi\n LaHood\n LaMalfa\n Lamb\n Lamborn\n Lance\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Latta\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lewis (MN)\n LoBiondo\n Long\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lowey\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n MacArthur\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Maloney, Sean\n Marchant\n Marino\n Marshall\n Massie\n Mast\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McClintock\n McEachin\n McHenry\n McKinley\n McMorris Rodgers\n McNerney\n McSally\n Meadows\n Meehan\n Meeks\n Meng\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Moolenaar\n Mooney (WV)\n Moulton\n Mullin\n Murphy (FL)\n Newhouse\n Norcross\n Norman\n Nunes\n O'Halleran\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Pallone\n Palmer\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Paulsen\n Payne\n Pearce\n Pelosi\n Perry\n Pittenger\n Poe (TX)\n Poliquin\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Ratcliffe\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (NY)\n Rice (SC)\n Richmond\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Rosen\n Roskam\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Roybal-Allard\n Royce (CA)\n Ruppersberger\n Russell\n Rutherford\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sanford\n Sarbanes\n Scalise\n Schrader\n Schweikert\n Scott, David\n Sensenbrenner\n Serrano\n Sessions\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Simpson\n Sinema\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (TX)\n Smucker\n Stefanik\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Taylor\n Tenney\n Thompson (MS)\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Titus\n Torres\n Trott\n Turner\n Upton\n Valadao\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walden\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walters, Mimi\n Wasserman Schultz\n Watson Coleman\n Weber (TX)\n Webster (FL)\n Welch\n Wenstrup\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (AK)\n Young (IA)\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--13\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Gowdy\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL)\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.\n\n {time} 1732\n\n Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''\n Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, Mrs. BEATTY, and Ms. SPEIER changed\ntheir vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''\n So the amendment was rejected.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Denham\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California\n(Mr. Denham) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which\nthe ayes prevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,\nnoes 193, not voting 13, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 159]\n\n AYES--222\n\n Abraham\n Aderholt\n Allen\n Amash\n Amodei\n Arrington\n Babin\n Bacon\n Banks (IN)\n Barletta\n Barr\n Barton\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (MI)\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Bost\n Brady (TX)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Bucshon\n Budd\n Burgess\n Byrne\n Calvert\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Coffman\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Cook\n Cooper\n Costa\n Costello (PA)\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Cuellar\n Culberson\n Curbelo (FL)\n Curtis\n Davidson\n Davis, Rodney\n Denham\n Dent\n DeSantis\n Diaz-Balart\n Duffy\n Duncan (SC)\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Emmer\n Estes (KS)\n Faso\n Ferguson\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Fortenberry\n Foxx\n Frelinghuysen\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Garrett\n Gianforte\n Gibbs\n Gohmert\n Goodlatte\n Gosar\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Graves (MO)\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Handel\n Harper\n Harris\n Hartzler\n Hensarling\n Herrera Beutler\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Hill\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hudson\n Huizenga\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, Sam\n Jordan\n Joyce (OH)\n Kelly (MS)\n Kelly (PA)\n Kind\n King (IA)\n Kinzinger\n Knight\n LaHood\n LaMalfa\n Lamborn\n Lance\n Latta\n Lewis (MN)\n LoBiondo\n Long\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n Marchant\n Marino\n Marshall\n Massie\n Mast\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McClintock\n McHenry\n McMorris Rodgers\n McSally\n Meadows\n Meehan\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Moolenaar\n Mooney (WV)\n Mullin\n Newhouse\n Norman\n Nunes\n O'Halleran\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Palmer\n Paulsen\n Pearce\n Perry\n Pittenger\n Poe (TX)\n Poliquin\n Posey\n Ratcliffe\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (SC)\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rohrabacher\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Roskam\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Royce (CA)\n Rutherford\n Sanford\n Scalise\n Schweikert\n\n[[Page H3687]]\n\n Scott, Austin\n Sensenbrenner\n Sessions\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Simpson\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (TX)\n Smucker\n Stefanik\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Taylor\n Tenney\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Trott\n Turner\n Upton\n Valadao\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walden\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walters, Mimi\n Weber (TX)\n Webster (FL)\n Wenstrup\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wilson (SC)\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (AK)\n Young (IA)\n\n NOES--193\n\n Adams\n Aguilar\n Barragan\n Bass\n Beatty\n Bera\n Beyer\n Bishop (GA)\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bonamici\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Bustos\n Butterfield\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Cardenas\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Castro (TX)\n Chu, Judy\n Cicilline\n Clark (MA)\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Cleaver\n Clyburn\n Cohen\n Connolly\n Correa\n Courtney\n Crist\n Crowley\n Cummings\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DeLauro\n DelBene\n Demings\n DeSaulnier\n DesJarlais\n Deutch\n Dingell\n Doggett\n Donovan\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Ellison\n Engel\n Eshoo\n Espaillat\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Fitzpatrick\n Foster\n Frankel (FL)\n Fudge\n Gabbard\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Gomez\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Gottheimer\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Griffith\n Grijalva\n Gutierrez\n Hanabusa\n Hastings\n Heck\n Higgins (NY)\n Himes\n Hoyer\n Huffman\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jeffries\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Jones\n Kaptur\n Katko\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n King (NY)\n Krishnamoorthi\n Lamb\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lieu, Ted\n Lipinski\n Loebsack\n Lowenthal\n Lowey\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n Lynch\n MacArthur\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Maloney, Sean\n Matsui\n McCollum\n McEachin\n McGovern\n McKinley\n McNerney\n Meeks\n Meng\n Moore\n Moulton\n Murphy (FL)\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Nolan\n Norcross\n O'Rourke\n Pallone\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Payne\n Pelosi\n Perlmutter\n Peters\n Peterson\n Pingree\n Pocan\n Polis\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Raskin\n Rice (NY)\n Richmond\n Rosen\n Roybal-Allard\n Ruiz\n Ruppersberger\n Rush\n Russell\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sarbanes\n Schakowsky\n Schiff\n Schneider\n Schrader\n Scott (VA)\n Scott, David\n Serrano\n Shea-Porter\n Sherman\n Sinema\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (WA)\n Soto\n Speier\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Takano\n Thompson (CA)\n Thompson (MS)\n Titus\n Tonko\n Torres\n Tsongas\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Vela\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Walz\n Wasserman Schultz\n Waters, Maxine\n Watson Coleman\n Welch\n Yarmuth\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--13\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Gowdy\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL)\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.\n\n {time} 1735\n\n So the amendment was agreed to.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Lynch\n\n The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a\nrecorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. Lynch) on which further proceedings were postponed\nand on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.\n The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.\n The Clerk redesignated the amendment.\n\n Recorded Vote\n\n The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.\n A recorded vote was ordered.\n The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.\n The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,\nnoes 227, not voting 14, as follows:\n\n [Roll No. 160]\n\n AYES--187\n\n Adams\n Aguilar\n Barragan\n Bass\n Beatty\n Bera\n Beyer\n Bishop (GA)\n Blumenauer\n Blunt Rochester\n Bonamici\n Boyle, Brendan F.\n Brady (PA)\n Brown (MD)\n Brownley (CA)\n Bustos\n Butterfield\n Capuano\n Carbajal\n Cardenas\n Cartwright\n Castor (FL)\n Castro (TX)\n Chu, Judy\n Cicilline\n Clark (MA)\n Clarke (NY)\n Clay\n Cleaver\n Clyburn\n Cohen\n Connolly\n Costa\n Courtney\n Crist\n Crowley\n Cuellar\n Cummings\n Davis (CA)\n Davis, Danny\n DeFazio\n DeGette\n Delaney\n DeLauro\n DelBene\n Demings\n DeSaulnier\n Deutch\n Dingell\n Doggett\n Doyle, Michael F.\n Ellison\n Engel\n Eshoo\n Espaillat\n Esty (CT)\n Evans\n Foster\n Frankel (FL)\n Fudge\n Gabbard\n Gallego\n Garamendi\n Gomez\n Gonzalez (TX)\n Goodlatte\n Gottheimer\n Green, Al\n Green, Gene\n Grijalva\n Gutierrez\n Hanabusa\n Harris\n Hastings\n Heck\n Higgins (NY)\n Himes\n Hoyer\n Huffman\n Jackson Lee\n Jayapal\n Jeffries\n Johnson (GA)\n Johnson, E. B.\n Kaptur\n Keating\n Kelly (IL)\n Kennedy\n Khanna\n Kihuen\n Kildee\n Kilmer\n Kind\n Krishnamoorthi\n Lamb\n Lance\n Langevin\n Larsen (WA)\n Larson (CT)\n Lawrence\n Lawson (FL)\n Lee\n Levin\n Lieu, Ted\n Loebsack\n Lowenthal\n Lowey\n Lujan Grisham, M.\n Lujan, Ben Ray\n Lynch\n Maloney, Carolyn B.\n Matsui\n McClintock\n McCollum\n McEachin\n McGovern\n McNerney\n Meeks\n Meng\n Moore\n Moulton\n Murphy (FL)\n Nadler\n Napolitano\n Neal\n Nolan\n Norcross\n O'Halleran\n O'Rourke\n Pallone\n Panetta\n Pascrell\n Paulsen\n Payne\n Pelosi\n Perlmutter\n Peters\n Peterson\n Pingree\n Pocan\n Polis\n Price (NC)\n Quigley\n Raskin\n Rice (NY)\n Richmond\n Rohrabacher\n Rosen\n Roybal-Allard\n Ruiz\n Ruppersberger\n Rush\n Ryan (OH)\n Sanchez\n Sarbanes\n Schakowsky\n Schiff\n Schneider\n Schrader\n Scott (VA)\n Serrano\n Shea-Porter\n Sherman\n Smith (WA)\n Soto\n Speier\n Suozzi\n Swalwell (CA)\n Takano\n Thompson (CA)\n Thompson (MS)\n Titus\n Tonko\n Torres\n Tsongas\n Vargas\n Veasey\n Vela\n Velazquez\n Visclosky\n Walz\n Wasserman Schultz\n Waters, Maxine\n Watson Coleman\n Welch\n Wenstrup\n Yarmuth\n\n NOES--227\n\n Abraham\n Aderholt\n Allen\n Amash\n Amodei\n Arrington\n Babin\n Bacon\n Banks (IN)\n Barletta\n Barr\n Barton\n Bergman\n Biggs\n Bilirakis\n Bishop (MI)\n Bishop (UT)\n Blum\n Bost\n Brady (TX)\n Brat\n Brooks (AL)\n Brooks (IN)\n Buchanan\n Buck\n Bucshon\n Budd\n Burgess\n Byrne\n Calvert\n Carter (GA)\n Carter (TX)\n Chabot\n Cheney\n Coffman\n Cole\n Collins (GA)\n Collins (NY)\n Comer\n Comstock\n Conaway\n Cook\n Cooper\n Correa\n Costello (PA)\n Cramer\n Crawford\n Culberson\n Curbelo (FL)\n Curtis\n Davidson\n Davis, Rodney\n Denham\n Dent\n DeSantis\n DesJarlais\n Diaz-Balart\n Donovan\n Duffy\n Duncan (SC)\n Duncan (TN)\n Dunn\n Emmer\n Estes (KS)\n Faso\n Ferguson\n Fitzpatrick\n Fleischmann\n Flores\n Fortenberry\n Foxx\n Frelinghuysen\n Gaetz\n Gallagher\n Garrett\n Gianforte\n Gibbs\n Gohmert\n Gosar\n Granger\n Graves (GA)\n Graves (LA)\n Graves (MO)\n Griffith\n Grothman\n Guthrie\n Handel\n Harper\n Hartzler\n Hensarling\n Herrera Beutler\n Hice, Jody B.\n Higgins (LA)\n Hill\n Holding\n Hollingsworth\n Hudson\n Huizenga\n Hultgren\n Hunter\n Hurd\n Issa\n Jenkins (KS)\n Jenkins (WV)\n Johnson (LA)\n Johnson (OH)\n Johnson, Sam\n Jones\n Jordan\n Joyce (OH)\n Katko\n Kelly (MS)\n Kelly (PA)\n King (IA)\n King (NY)\n Kinzinger\n Knight\n LaHood\n LaMalfa\n Lamborn\n Latta\n Lewis (MN)\n Lipinski\n LoBiondo\n Long\n Loudermilk\n Love\n Lucas\n Luetkemeyer\n MacArthur\n Maloney, Sean\n Marchant\n Marino\n Marshall\n Massie\n Mast\n McCarthy\n McCaul\n McHenry\n McKinley\n McMorris Rodgers\n McSally\n Meadows\n Meehan\n Messer\n Mitchell\n Moolenaar\n Mooney (WV)\n Mullin\n Newhouse\n Norman\n Nunes\n Olson\n Palazzo\n Palmer\n Pearce\n Perry\n Pittenger\n Poe (TX)\n Poliquin\n Posey\n Ratcliffe\n Reed\n Reichert\n Renacci\n Rice (SC)\n Roby\n Roe (TN)\n Rogers (AL)\n Rogers (KY)\n Rokita\n Rooney, Francis\n Rooney, Thomas J.\n Ros-Lehtinen\n Roskam\n Ross\n Rothfus\n Rouzer\n Royce (CA)\n Russell\n Rutherford\n Sanford\n Scalise\n Schweikert\n Scott, Austin\n Sensenbrenner\n Sessions\n Shimkus\n Shuster\n Simpson\n Sinema\n Smith (MO)\n Smith (NE)\n Smith (NJ)\n Smith (TX)\n Smucker\n Stefanik\n Stewart\n Stivers\n Taylor\n Tenney\n Thompson (PA)\n Thornberry\n Tipton\n Trott\n Turner\n Upton\n Valadao\n Wagner\n Walberg\n Walden\n Walker\n Walorski\n Walters, Mimi\n Weber (TX)\n Webster (FL)\n Westerman\n Williams\n Wilson (SC)\n Wittman\n Womack\n Woodall\n Yoder\n Yoho\n Young (AK)\n Young (IA)\n Zeldin\n\n NOT VOTING--14\n\n Black\n Blackburn\n Carson (IN)\n Gowdy\n Kuster (NH)\n Kustoff (TN)\n Labrador\n Lewis (GA)\n Lofgren\n Noem\n Scott, David\n Sewell (AL)\n Sires\n Wilson (FL\n\n Announcement by the Acting Chair\n\n The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.\n\n {time} 1739\n\n Mr. EVANS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''\n So the amendment was rejected.\n The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n\n personal explanation\n\n Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and\nmissed rollcall votes\n\n[[Page H3688]]\n\n155 to 160. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes:\n Rollcall 155, on H.R. 4, DeFazio Amendment, vote ``yea.''\n Rollcall 156, on H.R. 4, Rohrabacher/Bass Amendment, vote ``nay.''\n Rollcall 157, on H.R. 4, S. King Amendment, vote ``nay.''\n Rollcall 158, on H.R. 4, Lipinski Amendment, vote ``yea.''\n Rollcall 159, on H.R. 4, Denha/Costa Amendment, vote ``nay.''\n Rollcall 160, on H.R. 4, Lynch/Meng Amendment, vote ``yea.''\n\n personal explanation\n\n Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, I was not present for the following\nvotes because I chose to remain in my congressional district in Miami\nfor an important district event.\n Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall Vote No.\n155; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 156; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 157;\n``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 158; ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 159; and\n``yes'' on rollcall Vote No. 160.\n Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.\n The motion was agreed to.\n Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.\nSmucker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair\nof the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported\nthat that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4)\nto reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for\nother purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.\n\n ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2018-04-26-pt1-PgH3643-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 59.84783894382417, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}