Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have in my district office something called the ``casework staff.'' We do have disasters in Oregon, particularly floods. And we have had instances, apparently like the one that this legislation is trying to address, where we have gotten these improper decisions reversed and my communities reimbursed, handled by my casework staff. Here, we are going to legislate. Now, apparently, there was a problem in the gentleman's district. Too bad his casework staff didn't take care of it. But the way this is written, here is the language: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, FEMA shall deem any covered disaster assistance to have been properly procured, provided, and utilized, and shall restore any funding of covered disaster assistance previously provided but subsequently withdrawn or deobligated.'' It isn't specific to the gentleman's problem. This would be any community, anybody anywhere who might have legitimately misspent some disaster assistance, gets it back. This is so global. We might as well just not have a process to review disaster assistance and see whether it was properly spent, because this says, if you have got it and you spent it, that is all proper. I mean, it is deemed--deemed that every expenditure is legitimate, even if the money was diverted somehow. So, again, I am not certain who the other side is using for drafting assistance, but I recommend leg counsel. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman pointed out, Essential Air Service, to ensure that all Americans have access to something that is critical to economic development and, basically, livability for many smaller isolated communities, is paid for out of the trust fund. The trust fund is composed of fees paid by the airlines, by passengers, and by foreign airlines overflying the United States of America. This doesn't add to the debt, unlike this tax bill we passed. I know that the six largest banks in America saw a $4 billion windfall in tax cuts in one-quarter. It is projected they will have a $20 billion windfall by the end of the year. We are going to borrow $20 billion to give to profitable banks, including Wells Fargo, that just paid a $1 billion fine. Now they are getting the money back because we gave them a tax break. But he is concerned about the debt and the deficit, so we have got to screw the small communities in America and take away their air service. I think there are better ways to deal with our debt and deficit, and this doesn't add to it because it is paid for out of the trust fund. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, as I look at the drafting--and, again, my staff says they did reach out to your staff--I am confused when you get to the 50 percent part, whether it would have to be exactly 50 percent or otherwise. I agree, and I think that it would be good to push for more flexibility. For instance, I have a manufacturer of yurts in my district which are used in many places around the world as temporary housing. The military uses them, and others. I was approached by someone representing Airbnb about vacant houses they had, vacation homes in Puerto Rico, that could have been used when they were saying there was absolutely no housing for any emergency workers anywhere. And certainly there could be lower cost alternatives. I still remember when FEMA, I think it was under the Bush administration, bought a bunch of trailers that couldn't be used because they had some of that crappy Chinese formaldehyde-exuding wallboard in them, and they were not habitable. We are still importing that junk from China, by the way. So I agree they could be much more flexible. I think this amendment, again, as written, is problematic, but I certainly agree with the intent of the amendment to look at other lower cost alternatives. However, they should meet at least some minimal standards for sanitary facilities and other things. So I, again, have concerns about the drafting. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously, the gentleman has had significant experience with these problems in his part of the world that I think are somewhat unique, and I can also understand we want to expedite the review of people's claims. The major concerns we have are, one, that it appears, under the wording, that there would be no timeframe. So 20, 30 years after a disaster, someone could come in and file for arbitration. And secondly, by lowering the cost to any project that is $100,000, we have no idea what the scope of that would be or how many appeals that might generate. But I think the general idea about using the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals does have merit to expedite citizens' claims against the government agency. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I will say to the gentleman that my staff tells me they did contact his staff, they did express concerns. They said: Thank you for your concerns. And then, next thing we knew, the amendments were filed. And then she still said: We'd be happy to work with you. And we get no response. I think there may be kind of a staff issue going on here. Again, I have some concerns about, particularly, the unlimited time to apply and other details, perhaps. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I look forward to working with the gentleman. Just on the issue of the formaldehyde: we have laws and standards in this country still, despite Mr. Pruitt, that regulate the amount of formaldehyde that can be put into plywood. I have many people in my district who make plywood without using formaldehyde glues, and the Chinese put in massive amounts of formaldehyde glue, do not meet our standards, but we don't enforce or prohibit the importation, though we are about to file a case on that issue to prohibit them poisoning the American people. So that is another subject for another day. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of the amendments en bloc and recommend them to my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, I have read the amendment, and I can't quite follow it, my staff can't quite follow it, the gentleman's staff couldn't quite explain it. The gentleman has explained it in a way that this language may or may not reflect. FEMA has said they don't understand it. They may well be doing something regarding public facilities that is not following the intent of the law, but again, I am not certain about this as the solution. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this doesn't tell the FAA nor mandate the FAA to regulate lithium batteries. It would allow the status quo, which means the FAA would have the authority to determine whether they represent an inordinate risk and there should be strictures put upon their transport, whether it is containers or other strictures, as opposed to following the lowest common denominator international organization. You know, airplane manufacturers see the risk. According to the International Coordination Council for Aerospace Industries Association, which includes Boeing and Airbus, they say: ``Existing cargo compartment fire protection systems . . . are unable to suppress or extinguish a fire involving significant quantities of lithium batteries . . . . Therefore, continuing to allow the carriage of lithium batteries within today's transport category aircraft cargo compartments is an unacceptable risk to the air transport industry.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, years ago, people used to refer to the tombstone mentality at the FAA, with a lack of oversight where fatal accidents happened, loss of rudder control and other things like that that could have been prevented with proper maintenance. We have moved beyond that point to a much more engaged and active FAA, except Congress has imposed a tombstone mentality on the FAA. At the behest of Chinese battery manufacturers and large firms in the U.S. who utilize those batteries, an amendment was placed into a previous bill that prohibits the FAA from exercising its judgment about the safety of the carriage of lithium batteries on airplanes. Instead, we are bound to an international convention, the ICAO, which is very responsive to third-world countries and China and others in terms of seeking lowest common denominator regulation of anything that they can. Normally, we lead the world. Normally, we would say: No, get this stuff off aircraft. We have lost two 747s--two 747s. They were cargo aircraft. They went down because of lithium batteries. It only takes a very few lithium batteries. Do we have the lithium battery picture? This is packaging of lithium batteries. This is what happens with those lithium batteries if just one overheats and starts a spontaneous reaction--again, catastrophic to the aircraft. Now we are temporarily under an ICAO rule that says that they should not be carried in passenger aircraft, but they are still being regularly carried in the holds of cargo aircraft. Now, we have oceans. We have freighters. They have containers. You could plan ahead. Let's say 2 months from now we are going to say these things don't go in the air anymore because, okay, yeah, you are right; there are only a couple of pilots who are going to lose their lives. It kind of concerns me. Well, what happens if the 747 comes down in a populated area? Oops, a lot more people lose their lives. So you can say 2 months from now they are not going to be on aircraft anymore and the industry can set up a new supply chain of putting these things in containers and shipping them across the ocean in a way that will not endanger people on the ground and, in all probability, will not lead to fatalities if there were an uncontained spontaneous ignition of these batteries. Even worse, this administration has designated that the--did you ever hear of this?--Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, which is a little tiny, pretty dysfunctional agency, will take over the authority for the regulation and the negotiation of the regulation of lithium batteries from the FAA. What does PHMSA, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, know about aviation? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Nothing. So I guess, again, we are seeing the clout of the manufacturers and the Chinese battery manufacturers. Theoretically, they are safer now because they can only be charged to 30 percent, but often the Chinese just kind of forget to do it that way and put them on the planes anyway. So this is an accident waiting to happen. It is an imposition of a tombstone mentality on the FAA by Congress. It says, until there is another proven crash due to lithium batteries, we can't regulate. Come on. Really? Another proven crash, we can't regulate? Let's give the FAA the authority to regulate these batteries. They could probably develop containers, maybe, that they could go in and still be on aircraft, but there are other ways of moving these batteries in world commerce. So I would urge adoption of my amendment and the repeal of the tombstone mentality mandate on the FAA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This seems very commonsense to me. Earlier in the en bloc, my amendment was adopted, which would give the FAA authority to begin regulation of the small drones, which currently has been prohibited by a statute earlier adopted by Congress. If this passes, that will allow the FAA, if my amendment stands in conference, to adopt this commonsense rule. Should my amendment not be adopted in conference with the Senate, and we pass this, the FAA would not have the authority to prohibit arming of small drones since they are prohibited from regulating them. Hopefully, both things will occur. Mr. Chairman, I recommend adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time. We have already heard a lot today about noise complaints, and State 2 are very noisy aircraft. They were phased out of revenue service about 15 years ago. They are noisy. They consume more fuel. And I am not quite certain what uses these five or so airports might have and what this pilot program would look like. So I have a number of concerns about the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 42.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.