FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. I thank my chairman.
The legislation before us, H.R. 658, reauthorizes the safety and research programs, operations, airport grants, and funding for the Federal Aviation Administration for budget years 2011 through 2014. It's a 4-year reauthorization, with no earmarks, that will result in savings and in greater efficiencies.
The bill funds the FAA at the fiscal year 2008 funding levels and will save $4 billion compared to the current levels. These funding levels recognize the state of the Federal budget, but should not affect vital safety functions.
The FAA Administrator is directed to achieve required cost savings without cutting safety critical activities. The bill requires the FAA to find and eliminate wasteful processes, duplicative programs, and unnecessary practices.
[Time: 15:20]
Given current economic times, there is a need to put our limited resources where they are most needed and use them efficiently. Although we cannot do all that we may have wanted to, when facing budget cuts, difficult decisions have to be made. We have worked to preserve the ability of the FAA to conduct its safety functions--its most important mission and our number one priority.
The bill will phase out the Essential Air Service Program by 2013, resulting in $400 million in savings. The Essential Air Service Program was originally created in 1970 as a temporary program in the wake of airline deregulation. It was intended to allow airports to adapt to the change in the aviation industry and to plan accordingly. However, over the years, this program has resulted in taxpayers having to pay millions of dollars in subsidies to provide air service to communities even as passenger enplanements have declined as other modes of transportation have become available.
With regard to NextGen, H.R. 658 streamlines processes and provides sufficient funding, with FAA pursestring tightening, to fund NextGen projects planned in the next 4 years. H.R. 658 sets strict goals and benchmarks, and includes other measures to accelerate NextGen in order to keep the momentum going. NextGen is critical to the U.S.'s ability to compete in the global aviation system by providing safer and more efficient and environmentally friendly operations.
The bill allows for the expansion of the cost-effective Contract Tower Program, which has the potential to save, roughly, $400 million over 4 years. In addition, the legislation provides a clear and efficient process for the FAA to rapidly achieve benefits associated with the consolidation of old, obsolete and unnecessary FAA facilities, with enormous potential savings.
I would like to commend Chairman Mica for his efforts in developing this bill and moving it through the committee.
Also, while we may have differences on a few provisions, there is much in this bill that has bipartisan support. I look forward to continuing to work with my aviation partner, Representative Jerry Costello, and with our ranking member, Representative Nick Rahall, in getting agreement with the Senate so that we can finally send a bill to the President.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 658.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETRI. I would like my colleague from California to know that we recognize that this is a very well-intended amendment and it is addressing a concern particularly with the tremendous airport in your area. You have a later amendment that deals with the same subject that we think is more workable and better.
The concern we have has to do with the fact that there are a number of provisions in law already requiring airports to consult with local communities in a variety of situations. And we're just afraid that this particular amendment could be more of a one-size-fits-all approach across the whole country that could create problems rather than solve them. Therefore, we're looking forward to working with you on amendment No. 32, but I do oppose the current amendment as being too broad.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HIRONO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. We've reviewed your amendment. Based on the recommendation of the FAA, I think Chairman Mica and I are prepared to accept your amendment.
We would also ask, however, that you consider working with us on the amendment that you intend to offer later. It's in an area that is already within the FAA's jurisdiction where they're working but not as hard as you would like, and we think we could continue to work with you on that. But we would accept this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
I rise in support of this amendment, and I know the chairman of the full committee has looked at it and supports it as well. It gives the FAA administrator the ability to designate a NextGen center on a competitive basis, and it would be a good and needed resource for the FAA; and, therefore, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETRI. I understand the intent behind the amendment. We have checked with the people we as citizens pay at the FAA to develop expertise in this area, and they advise us that current safety standards are sufficient to meet the risk posed by cockpit smoke. According to our contacts, the FAA additionally believes that the existing performance-based standards for cockpit ventilation effectively eliminate the unsafe conditions associated with smoke in the flight deck.
Their current regulations require manufacturers to demonstrate that continuously generated cockpit smoke can be evacuated within 3 minutes to levels such that the residual smoke does not distract the flight crew or interfere with flight operations.
So on that basis, we oppose and urge the membership to join us in opposing this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. I again note that the underlying FAA reauthorization bill that we are contemplating tonight acknowledges this concern by asking the DOA to assess what the FAA has done in this area. So, to me, that says that this is an ongoing concern that is acknowledged in the underlying bill.
In addition, I would like to note that there are any number of private airlines that already have these kinds of systems that I am talking about in my amendment in their fleets. For example, Jet Blue has these systems, UPS. And on the Federal side, I think it is really interesting to note that the FAA's VIP fleet has this kind of system in its cockpits to make sure that their pilots can see when there is continuous dense smoke in the cockpit.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as being reasonable and taking us to the next steps to address this issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. I would just repeat, current requirements of the FAA require that smoke be evacuated from a flight deck within 3 minutes. And the feeling of the FAA is that resources can best be utilized to focus on the risk that generates the smoke rather than the smoke itself, and on getting the smoke out of the way rather than the approach that is being urged by this amendment. So I continue to recommend opposition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. I would like to close by reiterating once again that I think it is interesting that the FAA chooses to focus on the causes of cockpit smoke. Frankly, if there is smoke in the cockpit, I don't know that we need to be focusing that much on what causes the smoke. Of course that is important. But at the same time, what I care about on behalf of the pilot and the flying public is, what can we do. What systems are already available, what technology is already available, being used, I might say, extensively by the private sector as well as in government airplanes, that would ensure the safety of our pilots and flying public? This is why I continue to press the adoption of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that according to the information provided to the committee by the FAA, no accidents or catastrophic events have been tied solely to the presence of smoke in the flight deck. An analysis of accident data for the last 15 years shows that the equipment that would be required by this amendment would not have reduced fatal accidents. Therefore, I urge that we listen to the experts, keep our focus on eliminating the cause of the smoke, and not adopt the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PETRI. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETRI. We really do support the intent of the gen tle lady from California's amendment, but in our opinion and without further work and review of it, it's not something that is wise to codify into law at this particular juncture.
It is my understanding that all of the major air carriers do provide electronic notification of flight status. We want to review it to make sure of the scope of those, less the major carriers, and as to how this would work in practice so that it doesn't result in litigation and not really greater consumer convenience. The industry has been moving. Since you called this to the attention of the industry back several years ago, it has been implemented by all of the major carriers. So progress is being made, and we'd like to work with you to make further progress, but we do oppose the amendment at this time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source