Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, look around the country. There are many States that have not adopted a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. That is pretty pathetic. My State is one of many that has chosen to far exceed that minimum wage, but if we do away with--this says that federally funded contracts must receive the local prevailing wage for their work. In Oregon, we have recognized that with a higher minimum wage, so our prevailing wages are going to be higher than some State that only follows the Federal minimum wage of $7.50 an hour. So what might some contractor do? Oh, I can go over here and hire people who are used to earning $7.50 an hour. I am going to import them into Oregon. Of course, you are going to still have a problem with our minimum wage law, but this is what this is about is to find less expensive labor and move it around the country, and that, I believe, is a disservice to the working people of the United States. I would urge Congress, as it has done every other time this amendment has been offered, to reject it on a broad bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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 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 demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is representing very well his constituents' concerns. We had an earlier discussion on the floor about the aircraft noise. An amendment was adopted to have the FAA study the speed of approach and take-off, which can dramatically reduce the noise impact. I have also asked the FAA to look at establishing alternate performance-based navigation routes so they are not using the same route every day over the same houses and the same neighborhoods. When I first saw this amendment, it seemed to me innocuous since it seems to follow the basic requirement in the controller handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, section 561, which addresses this issue. However, we have been contacted by the National Air Traffic Controllers union, and they have expressed grave concerns that they think it may have unintended consequences. Unfortunately, they just contacted us, so we haven't been able to get the details of their concerns. So in that case, I would have to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, although I rose in opposition, my principal concern is this was a very, very long, difficult negotiation as we adopted the FAST Act, and all parties agreed on these five pilot projects. We gave the task, as we normally do, to the Department of Transportation to draw up a rule that will establish and implement the pilot program, but DOT has not yet acted to establish those rules. So I have concerns about putting strictures on the Department of Transportation before they have had an opportunity to implement the rule, which, hopefully, will be soon forthcoming. I assume it is not one of these rules that the President has held up from being issued, since it would be something beneficial, if properly done. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. I am pleased to be here today with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster; the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. LoBiondo; and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member. This bill also includes important provisions of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, something that previously passed the House and somehow escaped the attention of the Senate. We are sending it to them again in the hope they might notice if it is part of this package. Last week was tragic: the first death on a U.S.-flagged passenger aircraft since 2009, and that just followed an alarming news story by ``60 Minutes'' a few days before about an FAA oversight of a low-cost carrier. As a result, Ranking Member Larsen and I have sent a letter to the Secretary of Transportation demanding information on the oversight of the industry. We want to make sure that the FAA is being the watchdog that they need to be. It was many years ago, after the horrible ValuJet tragedy, the committee had already rejected my amendment to say to strip away the promotional duty of the FAA. Then, after the horrible ValuJet crash, when it turned out it was an incompetent subcontractor to a maintenance station, a totally preventable accident, they suddenly decided to change their mind and decided to include my amendment and remove the promotional authority. The FAA's principal duty is to protect the safety of the flying public, so we have got to be sure they are doing everything needed to do that. There is an important provision in the bill, long overdue, to give flight attendants a 10-hour minimum rest. Think of the schedule now--8 hours: Oh, well, the plane landed. You have got to get off the plane. You have got to get out of the airport. You have got to get in a cab or a van. You have got to go to the hotel. You get to return, reverse all that around, and do that. How much sleep are you going to get? So, finally, we are going to get the 10-hour requirement--again, long overdue. Flight attendants are critical safety personnel on the airplane. They cannot be fatigued, just like a pilot can't be fatigued. I have another concern that we are using computer simulations to meet the FAA standard for evacuation of a plane mandated in 90 seconds. As they jam more and more and more seats into these planes, I wonder if we have reached a point where we can no longer meet that standard, and we are going to have that. We are going to have the inspector general look at that topic and see whether or not we need to revisit it. You know, it is critical that we be able to get people off as quickly as possible. The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority led this many years ago after the Manchester accident, with the spacing for the over-wing exit, something that took me 7 years to get done here. But they have also dropped in more strictures on hand baggage and other things and made that part of the briefing, which we don't get because we don't want to scare people. Well, we need to be letting people know that they can't take stuff with them if they have to evacuate quickly. The FAA certification process, we have known for years, it needs reform, and this bill answers that call. It mandates a top-to-bottom reform of the process by which the FAA certifies new airplane engine and component designs. This will help our manufacturers become much more competitive in the world market and introduce their products more quickly to stay ahead of the market, but they will still be certified safe. The bill also contains the text of the Flags of Convenience Don't Fly Here Act. There are some who would turn the airline industry into the cruise line industry, where planes would be crewed by the cheapest labor you can find somewhere in the world. It is being done already with contract crews out of Asia for a so-called European airline, Norwegian Air, and they are circumventing the process that the EU is bound to under our Open Skies Agreement. The bill, unfortunately, lets stand something that Congress adopted in 2012, over my objections, which is to say we cannot have a higher standard than the International Civil Aviation Authority on lithium batteries. Lithium batteries are incredibly, incredibly dangerous on aircraft. We have already lost two 747s, and I will discuss this more when we get to my amendment. It is time to remove the prohibition and let the FAA regulate as they see fit regarding lithium batteries and not bind ourselves to an international group that is captive of other special interests. Just eight lithium batteries can take down an aircraft in a thermal runaway. So that, we will discuss later. This bill also, unfortunately, does not increase the cap on passenger facility charge. I would observe, flying a lot, that there are more and more and more tarmac delays because: I am sorry, your gate is occupied. Oh, the alley to the gate is full of planes. Oh, this, that. A lot of airports are bonded out. We haven't allowed them, since 2000, to increase the passenger facility charge, and so we are going to continue to have those delays. Until they can build larger terminals and they can build more gates, that is going to continue. We are also putting in some new mandates on the airports, which I support in this bill, having to do with pets and changing rooms and those sorts of things; but, again, we are not allowing them to get any increase in revenues to meet these new Federal mandates. I haven't given that up, but, obviously, we are not going to get it in this bill. You know, NextGen will be all for naught. NextGen is progressing well, despite what some say, but if we don't have enough terminals and gates at those terminals, as the former Administrator Randy Babbitt said: We can land them with closer spacing, we can do everything in the world, but at the end of the day at La Guardia Airport when it is a one-runway operation, you can still only land them once every 54 seconds. There are physical limits on the ground all around the country. Even if we enhance air traffic movement, avoiding weather and all that, we are going to be constrained at the airports unless the airports have what they need to make these investments. There are a number of amendments that will improve safety and efficiency, and I look forward to discussing those here on the floor. There is one amendment which is cropping up in this bill that relates to trucking. The gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) will offer it. It has been offered before in the House. It has never gone anywhere in the Senate. I predict the same thing will happen here. The bottom line is there is an issue from a court case that could be solved with a rifle shot, so to speak, regarding interstate commerce. Instead, despite what the proponents have told Representative Denham and others, this language would preempt every single State wage and hour law that pertains to trucking in the United States of America. The only strictures would be the Federal hours of service and the Federal minimum wage. The rest would be wiped out by this amendment because of the unfortunate language. There is a real underlying problem, and it could be solved much more discretely. But beyond that, this is a great bill. I again thank the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee, the ranking member, and other members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).