BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SHERMAN. I represent both airports in question. This is a principled amendment that deals with all airports that had curfews in effect in 1990.
To say that Burbank should appeal, having spent $9 million on a dead-end rigged process, is not a sufficient answer. And to say that Van Nuys should then go spend $9 million on a process that's obviously rigged is not an answer.
The answer is to adopt this amendment that doesn't cost the Federal Government a penny and simply allows the L.A. area to do what every stakeholder in the area wants to do. The harsh hand of the Federal Government should not prevent local control in this area.
Mr. MICA. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I try to work with Members that have problems. Unfortunately, again, in analyzing this--I do have the stewardship of the country at stake and our national aviation system. And this amendment, unfortunately, would set a precedent that would encourage other localities to seek congressional intervention to override FAA decisions or to avoid the agency review process altogether.
We could be here all the time doing this. The results would be a patchwork quilt of local regulations that would work against the maintenance of a national air transportation system. We can start taking it apart piece by piece. And that was exactly the concerns that led to the passage of the law in 1990.
Now, if it needs amending, I will work with them. I understand their concerns and others that might have a similar problem. And it's somewhat educational too to learn about the $9 million that they had to spend to go through this process and then have it denied.
But I can't in good faith, and, again, having a responsibility to the Nation and its aviation system, support this amendment at this time. I have to oppose it because, again, the patchwork, the quilt work, and the deluge that we would get in our committee. So, again, I'm having concerns, but I still remain in opposition.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT