Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, aviation is the only segment of transportation still using leaded fuels. The health impacts of leaded fuels are well-documented up to this point and the aviation industry writ large has been making a good-faith effort to transition to unleaded fuels. The FAA closely regulates the availability of fuels at public airports because it is a critical element to flight safety. The underlying bill text, as well as the manager's amendment offered by Chairman Graves and the ranking member, clarifies the fuel availability requirements at airports in line with the aviation industry timeline for transitioning away from leaded fuels. This amendment is confusingly written, and it is unnecessary. Unlike what the summary claims, it would reduce airports' flexibility to meet the FAA's requirements for fuel availability. Specifically, it would narrow the types of unleaded fuels that airports are required to provide under the bill. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge all Members to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I believe that we are trying to achieve the same goals here and I appreciate the gentleman's approach, but I do believe that it is restrictive; maybe not intentionally so, but as a matter of consequence. That is why I am going to continue to oppose this amendment. Not every airport has the flexibility to do what Representative Obernolte suggests that is available to them. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, not all companies have unleaded fuel that meets the standards that the gentleman suggests. I wish I could read this writing here. I would present a more eloquent rebuttal. Unfortunately, I can't read the scribble. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment that would remove the requirement for the FAA to study the social impacts of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, in the expansion of FAA's BEYOND program. The BEYOND program is vital for evaluating the safe integration of beyond visual line of sight and other advanced UAS operations. There are many potential societal benefits of UAS that are already being tested by the BEYOND program. UAS technology can be used for remote sensing to make our power systems more resilient to deliver medical supplies to underserved communities or to assist first responders in disaster response and relief efforts. For example, Dominion Energy used drones to inspect more than 40 power generation facilities, allowing them to conduct more frequent and efficient inspections. The expansion of the BEYOND program in the underlying bill will allow for testing of other new and emerging aviation concepts and technologies, such as more autonomous aircraft. As part of this testing, the program should consider societal impacts such as potential emissions, noise, and other community priorities. Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, it is ironic that today we talk about wokeness, and we talk about including a word, ``social,'' in the impacts that would be studied by the BEYOND program. The truth of the matter is that the BEYOND program is a Trump administration program, and the language that the gentleman seeks to eliminate from this authorization bill is the same language that was proposed, introduced, and passed under the Trump administration. There was no harm then, but now we have got a problem, because everybody is anti-woke.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the ranking member on the full committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ignore climate change as it studies the impacts of weather on the nature of turbulence. To deny the existence of climate change is to deny reality. There are copious amounts of data to show that climate change has been happening for decades. Recently, we have all experienced consecutive days of 90-plus-degree heat here in Washington, D.C., as well as we have seen sustained increases in temperatures across the country. In fact, June 2023 was the hottest June ever recorded on the planet, according to NASA. The scientific definition of weather refers to short-term atmospheric conditions, while climate change refers to long-term patterns and shifts in our climate. The dramatic shifts caused by climate change are not merely weather, and to limit NOAA's ability to study climate change would neglect our responsibility for ensuring safe air travel. Studying these long-term patterns and understanding how they impact turbulence is critical for putting the best safety practices in place, as well as understanding how to mitigate the impacts of turbulence. NOAA must have the authority to gather the data we need to help keep Americans safe in the air, reduce flight delays, and improve our understanding of changing atmospheric conditions. Let us not force NOAA to put its head in the ground while climate change is happening all around us. Mr. Chair, if my colleagues are with me, they will oppose this amendment, and I encourage more of my colleagues to do so. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, long-term weather patterns affect turbulence, and that is what we need to study. We should not deny that there will be long-term effects of climate change. We should not ignore the fact that climate change is real and is happening today. To force our government to not look at these weather patterns in the long term is very shortsighted. Let's plan for this turbulence as we come to grips with climate change. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am ready to close.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, safe travel in the future depends on the FAA's ability to predict long-term weather patterns, and that requires us to study the effects of climate change. That is what we need to do now. We need to do it to protect ourselves, our wives, our husbands, our children, our grandparents. We don't want any of our loved ones to die. Let's do the studying that we need in order to mitigate the effects of our previous ignoring of climate change as a phenomenon. Let's study it and come to grips with it and make things safer for the traveling public as we proceed forward. That is what we are doing under this FAA reauthorization bill. Mr. Chair, this amendment hurts that process. For that reason, I oppose it and ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in agreement with this amendment. It is a commonsense compromise. I rise in support of it, and I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this amendment. This amendment would simply increase the average number of flight departures from Reagan National Airport from 400 average per day to 407 flights departing per day, not anything more than that. For those who oppose this, the only reasons why airlines are opposing this is that they want to limit competition, and they want ticket prices to remain the highest in the Nation for flying in and out of Washington, D.C. When we allow more flights into Washington, D.C., and out of Washington, D.C., we allow more families to come in from west of the Mississippi to visit the Nation's Capital. We enable more people to come in and work and be more efficient. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would slash funding authorization levels for the Airport Improvement Program, the AIP, FAA operations and maintenance, and research and development efforts. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee overwhelmingly agreed that AIP funding must be increased to $4 billion annually in order to fund critical programs across the FAA and invest in our aviation industry. This amendment would slash that funding level and impede the full funding of grants and projects to address the pressing infrastructure needs of airports across the country. It would also significantly decrease FAA operations and maintenance funding, which jeopardizes the effectiveness of the agency amidst growing demands placed upon the aviation industry. Finally, this amendment cuts agreed-upon funding for the FAA's research and development activities on aircraft safety, on environmental impact mitigation, on airport infrastructure, and on human factors and new airspace entrants, among other important issues. Cutting this critical funding would undermine U.S. aerospace innovation and our relationship in the global sector. Moreover, it would put public safety at risk. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, if we have the money to shore up our nuclear defense capability, more and more nuclear weapons, we certainly have the ability to keep these people up here safe as they fly in and out of Washington, D.C. Our families, businesspeople, the flying public deserves Congress to fully fund what the consensus has arrived at. This is what Americans want us to do. They want us to arrive at a consensus. This FAA reauthorization bill is a bipartisan effort, and all of the figures were arrived at in a bipartisan way, and we present this to the American people for their protection and for their safety. I agree that there may be cuts that may be necessary, but not to this particular program. I respectfully disagree with my friend on the other side of the aisle, and I will ask my colleagues to join me in being opposed to this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank you for the indulgence here. The fact is, we have the money, and we need to spend this money to promote the public welfare and the public safety. That is what we are doing with this expenditure, with this authorization for that expenditure, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting public safety and the safety of the flying public. We have the best aviation system in the world. We need to keep it that way. We have to invest in it. That is what this is all about. We don't need to divest and put our public at risk. Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues vote to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I speak in opposition to the amendment. My friend on the other side is well intentioned on this. However, we may be putting the cart before the horse. This bill would strike the requirement in the underlying bill for the FAA to update the definitions in regulation to classify vertiports as a subset of heliports. The term ``vertiport'' is already being used in the advanced air mobility, AAM, industry to describe points at which these advanced aircraft can safely take off and land. The updated definition in the underlying bill will help to create a unified system for vertical aviation infrastructure, including for electric aircraft, and provides necessary regulatory certainty for this emerging sector to grow in the United States and also sets the stage for the assessment of revenue by which we can continue to keep the system upgraded and available for all, including these aircraft that will use the vertiport. This is about planning for the future, laying in the regulatory groundwork for the future. For the reason that we need to do this, I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we do need to raise revenue, and I look forward to supporting any proposals that my friend on the other side would propose, out of fairness, I think. I mean, no one segment should be able to get a free ride, so I would appreciate that. The fact of the matter is that most of my friends on the other side of the aisle have already signed on to the Grover Norquist no new tax pledge, so for years, they have neglected to raise revenues where appropriate, and they will continue to abide by the pledge that they have given. So far, I don't see any yield in that trajectory, but the fact is we are going to have to raise some revenue as we move forward, and I look forward to working with the gentleman in that endeavor. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. The 1033 program has been around for 30-plus years. It has been an open conduit through which armaments directly from battlefields have flowed directly into the hands of State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This equipment has operated to militarize police departments without civilian authority. The 1033 program operates such that a law enforcement agency, even a school law enforcement agency or university law enforcement agency can just simply petition the Defense Logistics Agency for whatever equipment is listed on the website. They can order it. As long as they can pay for the transportation of it to their location, they can get the equipment without any civilian oversight authority approving it. The rules of the 1033 program require that, once the law enforcement agency takes possession of the equipment, that it be placed into service within 1 year of its acquisition or else it has to be returned. That is a recipe for law enforcement agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry without county commission or city council approval. They get it and must put it into use within a year of their receipt of it. That means that untrained police officers using military equipment against civilians without civilian authority approval. That is a pipeline that needs to be shut down. After President Obama shut the pipeline down to a great extent, President Trump reopened it, and now President Biden has shut it down. Now, we have this amendment that seeks to open it to even more militarized equipment than was allowed in the first place. If you want large-caliber, .50-caliber weaponry from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq to flow to your neighborhood, then you support this amendment. If you want large-caliber weaponry, artillery, mortar rounds, if you want that coming onto your property, into your community, then vote for this amendment. If you want weaponized drones from the battlefield to flow to your community without your Representatives' knowledge or consent, then vote for this amendment. If you want flamethrowers, if you want missiles, if you want all kinds of equipment that this amendment opens the door to to come to your community, then be in favor of this amendment. I stand opposed to it. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).