Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Congressional Record on the Topic

Congressional Record on the Topic

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:
Congressional Record on the Topic
Congressional Record on the Topic

More info:

Published by: Judicial Watch, Inc. on Dec 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDHOUSE
H2130
 March 31, 2011
ChaffetzChandlerCobleCoffman (CO)ColeConawayCostaCostelloCourtneyCravaackCrawfordCrenshawCritzCuellarCulbersonDavis (IL)Davis (KY)DentDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonnelly (IN)DreierDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersEmersonFarentholdFarrFincherFitzpatrickFlakeFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFrank (MA)Franks (AZ)GalleglyGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (MO)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuintaGuthrieHallHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)HayworthHeckHellerHensarlingHergerHerrera BeutlerHoldenHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (IL)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanKapturKeatingKellyKindKing (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KissellKlineLabradorLambornLanceLandryLangevinLankfordLarsen (WA)LathamLaTouretteLattaLewis (CA)LoBiondoLoebsackLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisLungren, DanielE.MackManzulloMarchantMarinoMathesonMcCarthy (CA)McCarthy (NY)McCaulMcClintockMcCotterMcGovernMcHenryMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorrisRodgersMcNerneyMeehanMicaMichaudMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller (NC)Miller, GaryMulvaneyMurphy (PA)MyrickNeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonOwensPalazzoPaulPaulsenPearcePencePerlmutterPetersPetersonPetriPingree (ME)PittsPlattsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)Price (NC)QuayleRahallReedRehbergReichertRenacciReyesRibbleRichardsonRigellRiveraRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRooneyRos-LehtinenRoskamRoss (AR)Ross (FL)RoyceRunyanRyan (WI)ScaliseSchillingSchmidtSchockSchraderSchweikertScott (SC)Scott, AustinScott, DavidSensenbrennerSessionsSewellShimkusShulerShusterSimpsonSiresSmith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStearnsStiversStutzmanSullivanTerryThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)Thompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurnerUptonWalbergWaldenWalsh (IL)Walz (MN)WattWebsterWeinerWelchWestWestmorelandWhitfieldWilson (SC)WittmanWolf WomackWoodallWuYoderYoung (AK)Young (FL)Young (IN)
NAYS—130
AckermanAndrewsBaldwinBass (CA)BecerraBerkleyBermanBishop (NY)BlumenauerBrady (PA)Brown (FL)CapuanoCarnahanCarson (IN)Castor (FL)ChuCicillineClarke (MI)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnolly (VA)ConyersCooperCrowleyCummingsDavis (CA)DeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDeutchDicksDingellDoggettDoyleEdwardsEllisonEngelEshooFattahFilnerFudgeGaramendiGonzalezGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHanabusaHastings (FL)HeinrichHigginsHimesHincheyHinojosaHironoHoltHondaHoyerInsleeIsraelJackson (IL)Jackson Lee(TX)Johnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KildeeKucinichLarson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgren, ZoeLoweyLuja´nLynchMarkeyMatsuiMcCollumMeeksMiller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (CT)NadlerNapolitanoNealOlverPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PaynePelosiPolisQuigleyRangelRothman (NJ)Roybal-AllardRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sa´nchez, LindaT.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiff SchwartzScott (VA)SerranoShermanSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierStarkSuttonTierneyTonkoTownsTsongasVan HollenVela´zquezViscloskyWassermanSchultzWatersWaxmanWilson (FL)WoolseyYarmuth
NOT VOTING—10
Barton (TX)Braley (IA)CampbellDenhamFrelinghuysenGiffordsHannaMaloneyMcDermottRichmond
b
1455Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed hisvote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’So (two-thirds being in the affirma-tive) the rules were suspended and thebill, as amended, was passed.The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.
f
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HANNA. Madam Speaker, I was un-avoidably absent for votes. Had I beenpresent, I would have voted ‘‘yes’’ on rollcallvotes 205 and 206.
f
GENERAL LEAVEMr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-mous consent that all Members mayhave 5 legislative days to revise and ex-tend their remarks on H.R. 658 and in-clude extraneous materials in the C
ON
-
GRESSIONAL
R
ECORD
.The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.W
ESTMORELAND
). Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromFlorida?There was no objection.
f
FAA REAUTHORIZATION ANDREFORM ACT OF 2011The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 189 and ruleXVIII, the Chair declares the House inthe Committee of the Whole House onthe state of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill, H.R. 658.
b
1458
INTHECOMMITTEEOFTHEWHOLE
 
Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the state of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 658) toamend title 49, United States Code, toauthorize appropriations for the Fed-eral Aviation Administration for fiscalyears 2011 through 2014, to streamlineprograms, create efficiencies, reducewaste, and improve aviation safety andcapacity, to provide stable funding forthe national aviation system, and forother purposes, with Mrs. E
MERSON
inthe chair.The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, thebill is considered read the first time.General debate shall be confined tothe bill and amendments specified inHouse Resolution 189 and shall not ex-ceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally di-vided and controlled by the chair andranking minority member of the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure, 10 minutes equally dividedand controlled by the chair and rank-ing minority member of the Committeeon Science, Space, and Technology, and10 minutes equally divided and con-trolled by the chair and ranking minor-ity member of the Committee on Waysand Means.The gentleman from Florida (Mr.M
ICA
) and the gentleman from WestVirginia (Mr. R
AHALL
) each will con-trol 20 minutes. The gentleman fromTexas (Mr. H
ALL
), the gentlewomanfrom Maryland (Ms. E
DWARDS
), thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. C
AMP
)and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.L
EVIN
) each will control 5 minutes.The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Florida (Mr. M
ICA
).
b
1500Mr. MICA. I yield myself such timeas I may consume.Madam Chairman, the legislation be-fore us now, as the Chair has indicated,is the FAA Reauthorization and Re-form Act of 2011.During the discussion on the rulewhich brought the measure to thefloor, I had an opportunity to speak onthe fairness of the rule, and again I’llcite: Having been here for a number of years and observed the process forthree decades, I rarely find any time inwhich everyone has had a fair oppor-tunity to offer amendments. Some 48amendments were offered before theRules Committee. Thirty-three wereaccepted. Nine were withdrawn. Sothere are only six that were not consid-ered—some for germaneness reasons,some for being duplicative—and also,in fairness, for Members to have an op-portunity to participate. So, again, Ithink the process that we have comeforward with is very, very fair. Theprocess has been fair and bipartisan inthe committee.In the last 4 years, as the ranking Re-publican, Republican leader of thecommittee, I can count on probablyless than three fingers the number of votes that we had over the 4 years. Wehad many more votes than that in thecommittee. It was an open process andpeople had the opportunity to partici-pate.I also spoke in the rule of how we gotourselves in this predicament. I had
VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Apr 01, 2011Jkt 099060PO 00000Frm 00020Fmt 7634Sfmt 0634E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.005H31MRPT1
  r   f  r  e   d  e  r   i  c   k  o  n   D   S   K   D   9   S   0   Y   B   1   P   R   O   D  w   i   t   h   H   O   U   S   E
 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDHOUSE
H2131
 March 31, 2011
the honor and privilege of being thechair of the Aviation Subcommitteeafter the beginning of 9/11 and throughthe fateful time of 9/11 for 6 years. In2003, we passed the last authorizationfor FAA. Now, in order to operate theFederal Government and each of itsagencies and activities, the Congressmust authorize the programs, the poli-cies, the agencies, the funding for-mulas, and the projects that are eligi-ble for Federal participation.As I also stated, the other side of theaisle for 4 years had huge majorities,could pass anything that they wantedto. Very large majority in the House,large majority in the Senate. And thelast 2 years, indeed, they controlled theWhite House, the House, and the Sen-ate. They could pass anything theywanted.In 2007, the bill that I helped author,a 4-year authorization, expired. Theydid 17 extensions in 4 years. It’s nowonder people don’t have jobs. It’s nowonder that people in the aviation in-dustry don’t know which way the Fed-eral Government is coming or going.It’s no wonder that you have some dis-array in one of our most importantagencies, the FAA. They had 4 years;we’ve had less than 4 months. We’rebringing the bill out.We’ve had a fair process in the com-mittee, and we’ve had opportunity forpeople to offer amendments and willspend most of today and maybe part of tomorrow going through those amend-ments in, I think, an adequate time fordebate. The bill does make some reduc-tions in spending and it does take usback to the 2008 level of spending.Now, the first thing you will hearfrom the other side is, Oh, the Repub-licans are cutting and slashing impor-tant FAA programs and safety and se-curity and everything under the sunwill be at risk. I can tell you thatthat’s not the case. I can tell you thatyou can do more with less, and we canprioritize. In fact, in this bill, to makecertain that safety is our primary con-cern—and it must be our primary con-cern—we have put specific provisionsin here that if there are cuts or reduc-tions—and heaven knows the FAA andthe Department of Transportation cer-tainly can have reductions in bureau-cratic staffing. My dad used to saywhen he was alive, ‘‘Son, it’s not howmuch you spend; it’s how you spendit.’’ And it’s just like that with per-sonnel.People say, well, we’re not going tohave enough air traffic controllers. Wejust had the incident out at Reagan.We had an air traffic controller withsome 20 years’ experience, 17 years atDCA, came to work I guess at 10o’clock. There was somebody thereuntil almost 10:30. So I understand hewas there an hour and 28 minutes andeither fell asleep or wasn’t doing hisduty. So, in Washington, what do theydo? We’ve got to double up. We’ve gotto have more employees.Listen to this statistic. Since before2001, we have a 21 percent decrease. If we go to 2001 to today, we have a 21percent decrease in air traffic move-ments. Why? Because the industry hasconsolidated. We don’t have as manyflights. The economy is down. At thesame time, we have an increase in 20percent of staffing. If you look at air-ports around the country, you will seesome with huge reductions in air traf-fic and still the same number of airtraffic controllers. In this bill, we givesome flexibility so you can hopefullymove people around.Now, I know there are labor agree-ments and it’s hard to get people tomove, and some people might not likethe warm climes and beauty of Floridawhere the population has expanded— and Arizona and wherever else we needthem—but, for heaven’s sake, do weneed to double up? Do we need to dou-ble up when there’s no air traffic atthese airports between midnight and 5a.m.? That’s the Washington big spend-ing, big government. Let’s add more.So I can tell you that there’s plentyof room for doing things responsibly,doing things with safety in mind. Nowlet’s try a new approach with the bestinterests of the taxpayer.They’ve spent some $5.3 billion inabout 24 months more than we take in.We’re on the verge of having our finan-cial security of this Nation at risk andalso threatening even the defense secu-rity of this Nation.Again, 17 times they did these littlehiccup extensions, costing millions of dollars. Just ask the FAA adminis-trator; the recalculation, all the thingsthat had to be done; the inability tomove forward with safety programs, forthat matter.So I just want to make the point thatwe can accomplish what we’ve set out:a reduction in spending and, actually,better performance and better safety. Icould give more examples. I don’t havea lot of time.We used to chase developmental pro-grams, and the government would tryto develop technology for air trafficcontrol, and they take forever. And theprivate sector would develop tech-nologies. They do it sooner, faster, bet-ter, with more capability, while we’restill spending billions of dollars reck-lessly. And we reduced, actually, theamount of money in those develop-mental programs, and we actually haveput out there the technology faster,better. So there are many areas, and Ican’t spend all my time talking aboutthem.This is a job creation bill. 9.2 percentof the gross domestic activity in thisNation depends on this industry. Wecount on this. As I said, in less than 4months, the other body, the Senate,has already passed the bill. We’re readyto go to conference. We’ve asked forone extension to accomplish this. Andthis bill has excellent provisions.Finally, you will hear them moanand groan about some labor provisionthat someone described that we’re tak-ing away democratic rights and all of this for union members. It couldn’t befurther from the truth. We have had 70-some years of rules organizing for laborwhere we’ve always had a majority of those who were affected have to vote ina union. Now they want to change it towhoever shows up. They have multipleelections. And that’s what they’re ask-ing for.The little caveat here—and I hope ev-eryone is listening, Madam Chair.What they didn’t do is to decertify toget out of the union. They left the oldrule in place. There has to be a major-ity of everyone who’s affected.They’ll tell you that they didn’t letwomen vote and all this a long timeago, try to mix up the topic at handand confuse people, but you can’t thinkof a more unfair rule than a packed Na-tional Mediation Board has enacted.Unfair, easy to enter in, cut the provi-sions for entering in, and then put abarrier up to get out.Again, I think this is an excellentprogram. It gives us opportunities tolook at contract towers and then airtraffic control, NextGen, the next gen-eration of air traffic control. We can dobetter. We can get technology in place.We’ll probably have to use fewer peo-ple. And we’ll always know where theplanes are if we can move this legisla-tion forward that, again, has been onthe shelf for some 4 years.There are excellent provisions in thislegislation. I feel confident that it de-serves the support of the House, andwe’ll have fair and open debate onamendments.
H
OUSEOF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
, C
OM
-
MITTEEON
S
CIENCE
, S
PACE
,
AND
 T
ECHNOLOGY
,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.
Hon. J
OHN
M
ICA
,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure, Rayburn House OfficeBuilding, Washington, DC.
D
EAR
M
R
. C
HAIRMAN
: I am writing to youconcerning the jurisdictional interest of theCommittee on Science, Space, and Tech-nology in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011.H.R. 658 was favorably reported by theCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure on March 10, 2011 and sequentiallyreferred to the Committee on Science, Space,and Technology. I recognize and appreciateyour desire to bring this legislation beforethe House of Representatives in an expedi-tious manner, and, accordingly, I will waivefurther consideration of this bill in Com-mittee. This, of course, being conditional onour mutual understanding that Title X of the legislation reported by your Committeewill be removed from the legislation and pro-visions regarding research and developmentactivities at the Federal Aviation Adminis-tration developed by the Committee onScience, Space, and Technology will be in-cluded in the legislation considered on theFloor. However, agreeing to waive consider-ation of this bill should not be construed aswaiving, reducing or affecting the jurisdic-tion of the Committee on Science, Space,and Technology.Further, I request your support in the ap-pointment of conferees from the Committeeon Science, Space, and Technology duringany House-Senate conference convened onthis, or any similar legislation. I also askthat a copy of this letter and your responsebe placed in the Congressional Record duringconsideration of the bill on the House floor.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Apr 01, 2011Jkt 099060PO 00000Frm 00021Fmt 7634Sfmt 0634E:\CR\FM\K31MR7.046H31MRPT1
  r   f  r  e   d  e  r   i  c   k  o  n   D   S   K   D   9   S   0   Y   B   1   P   R   O   D  w   i   t   h   H   O   U   S   E
 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDHOUSE
H2132
 March 31, 2011
I look forward to working with you as weprepare to pass this important legislation.Sincerely,R
ALPH
M. H
ALL
,
Chairman.
H
OUSEOF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
, C
OM
-
MITTEEON
T
RANSPORTATIONAND
 I
NFRASTRUCTURE
,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.
Hon. R
ALPH
M. H
ALL
,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology, Washington, DC.
D
EAR
M
R
. C
HAIRMAN
: Thank you for yourletter regarding H.R. 658, the ‘‘FAA Reau-thorization and Reform Act of 2011.’’ TheCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure recognizes the Committee onScience, Space, and Technology has a juris-dictional interest in H.R. 658, and I appre-ciate your effort to facilitate considerationof this bill.As you wrote in your letter, we haveagreed to strike Title X from the Transpor-tation and Infrastructure Committee re-ported H.R. 658. Provisions regarding re-search and development activities at theFederal Aviation Administration developedby the Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology will be included in the legisla-tion considered on the House Floor.I also concur with you that forgoing actionon this bill does not in any way prejudice theCommittee on Science, Space, and Tech-nology with respect to its jurisdictional pre-rogatives on this bill or similar legislationin the future, and I would support your effortto seek appointment of an appropriate num-ber of conferees to any House-Senate con-ference involving this legislation.I will include our letters on H.R. 658 in theCongressional Record during House Floorconsideration of the bill. Again, I appreciateyour cooperation regarding this legislationand I look forward to working with the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Technology asthe bill moves through the legislative proc-ess.Sincerely,J
OHN
L. M
ICA
,
Chairman.
H
OUSEOF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
,C
OMMITTEEONTHE
J
UDICIARY
,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2011.
Hon. J
OHN
M
ICA
,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure, Rayburn House OfficeBuilding, Washington, DC.
D
EAR
C
HAIRMAN
M
ICA
, I am writing con-cerning H.R. 658, the ‘‘FAA Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011,’’ which is scheduledfor floor consideration next week. As a resultof your having consulted with us on provi-sions in H.R. 658 that fall within the Rule Xjurisdiction of the Committee on the Judici-ary, we are able to agree to forego action onthis bill in order that it may proceed expedi-tiously to the House floor for consideration.The Judiciary Committee takes this actionwith our mutual understanding that by fore-going consideration of H.R. 658 at this time,we do not waive any jurisdiction over subjectmatter contained in this or similar legisla-tion, and that our Committee will be appro-priately consulted and involved as the bill orsimilar legislation moves forward so that wemay address any remaining issues in our ju-risdiction. Our Committee also reserves theright to seek appointment of an appropriatenumber of conferees to any House-Senateconference involving this or similar legisla-tion, and requests your support for any suchrequest.I would appreciate your response to thisletter confirming this understanding with re-spect to H.R. 658, and would ask that a copyof our exchange of letters on this matter beincluded in the C
ONGRESSIONAL
R
ECORD
dur-ing floor consideration.Sincerely,L
AMAR
S
MITH
,
Chairman.
H
OUSEOF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
, C
OM
-
MITTEEON
T
RANSPORTATIONAND
 I
NFRASTRUCTURE
,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2011.
Hon. L
AMAR
S
MITH
,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Ray-burn House Office Building, Washington,DC.
D
EAR
M
R
. C
HAIRMAN
: Thank you for yourletter regarding H.R. 658, the ‘‘FAA Reau-thorization and Reform Act of 2011.’’ TheCommittee on Transportation and Infra-structure recognizes the Committee on theJudiciary has a jurisdictional interest inH.R. 658, and I appreciate your effort to fa-cilitate consideration of this bill.I also concur with you that forgoing actionon this bill does not in any way prejudice theCommittee on the Judiciary with respect toits jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill orsimilar legislation in the future, and I wouldsupport your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to anyHouse-Senate conference involving this leg-islation.I will include our letters on H.R. 658 in theC
ONGRESSIONAL
R
ECORD
during House Floorconsideration of the bill. Again, I appreciateyour cooperation regarding this legislationand I look forward to working with the Com-mittee on the Judiciary as the bill movesthrough the legislative process.Sincerely,J
OHN
L. M
ICA
,
Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
b
1510Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.Madam Chair, it was just last weektwo airliners landed at Washington Na-tional Airport without landing clear-ances because apparently the singleperson in charge of the control towerfell asleep. While investigations are on-going, we certainly have seen accidentsin the past where controller staffingand fatigue were implicated, such asthe August 2006 crash of Comair Flight5191 in Lexington, Kentucky.So I was surprised when some of myRepublican colleagues used this mostrecent incident at Washington Na-tional Airport as an opportunity toargue that the FAA should ‘‘do morewith less.’’ Do more with less: that’show the Republicans think the FAAwill operate under this bill. When we’retalking about investing in air trafficcontrol modernization or regulatingsafety or hiring a sufficient number of safety inspectors, there’s no such thingas ‘‘doing more with less.’’Under this bill, the FAA will have todo less with less, and you would haveto be asleep at the controls not to seethat.The FAA is primarily a safety agen-cy, and virtually all of its activitiesare safety related. As last week’s inci-dent should make clear, now is not thetime to arbitrarily cut almost $4 bil-lion from the FAA programs and arguethat the agency can do more with lesson safety. A long-term FAA reauthor-ization bill must move the aviationsystem into the 21st century, createjobs, strengthen our economy, and pro-vide the resources necessary to en-hance safety. This legislation, unfortu-nately, does not meet those goals. Itwill require significant changes beforeit can be enacted into law, and there-fore I cannot support it.One thing we should all be honestabout right now: this is not a jobs bill.The bill cuts FAA funding by billionsof dollars, back to 2008 levels. You can-not cut funding so dramatically with-out destroying tens of thousands of jobs: Federal jobs, State jobs, localjobs, public and private sector jobs.In addition to costing jobs, the bill’sfunding cuts would cause delays to airtraffic control modernization, meaningmore delayed flights, a reduction of FAA’s safety workforce and delays toFAA safety rules.Now, aside from the funding levels,there are two particular issues thatpreclude my support for this bill. Thefirst is that the bill sunsets the Essen-tial Air Service program for the lower48 States in 2013, leaving behind about110 communities across the country.Yet at the same time, the bill extendsairport improvements to the MarshallIslands, Micronesia, and Palau. We donot even own them. They are inde-pendent countries.Now, I do understand the reasons forproviding airport improvement fundsto these island nations. We do have acompact with them. But in seeking tokeep faith with our agreements withthose countries, the majority is morethan willing to break the promise torural America right here at home thatwas made under the Airline Deregula-tion Act and the FAA reauthorizationbills that followed.EAS is a vital lifeline between ruralcommunities and the global network of commerce. Small and rural commu-nities have grown up around EAS,which directly supports local jobs. Itcreates a flow of goods and commerceinto and out of small-town America. Itbrings families together. It links fourcommunities in my home State of WestVirginia with other cities and townsaround the country and around theworld.Essential Air Service is an invest-ment; it’s not a handout. It is an in-vestment in jobs and economic growthfor small towns. The majority is turn-ing its back on small towns and ruralAmerica.I will continue to work with my col-leagues in a bipartisan fashion tohonor the promise that Congress hasmade to the people in rural America. Irecognize the job-protecting benefits of the EAS program and the value of crit-ical Federal investment for rural com-munities.Now, before I conclude, there’s an-other section that has no businesswhatsoever being in this bill, and thatis a provision that seeks to overturn arule finalized by the National Medi-ation Board on fair union representa-tion in elections. The rule did away
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:31 Apr 01, 2011Jkt 099060PO 00000Frm 00022Fmt 7634Sfmt 0634E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.007H31MRPT1
  r   f  r  e   d  e  r   i  c   k  o  n   D   S   K   D   9   S   0   Y   B   1   P   R   O   D  w   i   t   h   H   O   U   S   E

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->