Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

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

Mr. PETRI. I would like my colleague from California to know that we recognize that this is a very well-intended amendment and it is addressing a concern particularly with the tremendous airport in your area. You have a later amendment that deals with the same subject that we think is more workable and better. The concern we have has to do with the fact that there are a number of provisions in law already requiring airports to consult with local communities in a variety of situations. And we're just afraid that this particular amendment could be more of a one-size-fits-all approach across the whole country that could create problems rather than solve them. Therefore, we're looking forward to working with you on amendment No. 32, but I do oppose the current amendment as being too broad.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PETRI. Yes.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PETRI. We've reviewed your amendment. Based on the recommendation of the FAA, I think Chairman Mica and I are prepared to accept your amendment. We would also ask, however, that you consider working with us on the amendment that you intend to offer later. It's in an area that is already within the FAA's jurisdiction where they're working but not as hard as you would like, and we think we could continue to work with you on that. But we would accept this amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). I rise in support of this amendment, and I know the chairman of the full committee has looked at it and supports it as well. It gives the FAA administrator the ability to designate a NextGen center on a competitive basis, and it would be a good and needed resource for the FAA; and, therefore, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. I understand the intent behind the amendment. We have checked with the people we as citizens pay at the FAA to develop expertise in this area, and they advise us that current safety standards are sufficient to meet the risk posed by cockpit smoke. According to our contacts, the FAA additionally believes that the existing performance-based standards for cockpit ventilation effectively eliminate the unsafe conditions associated with smoke in the flight deck. Their current regulations require manufacturers to demonstrate that continuously generated cockpit smoke can be evacuated within 3 minutes to levels such that the residual smoke does not distract the flight crew or interfere with flight operations. So on that basis, we oppose and urge the membership to join us in opposing this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I would just repeat, current requirements of the FAA require that smoke be evacuated from a flight deck within 3 minutes. And the feeling of the FAA is that resources can best be utilized to focus on the risk that generates the smoke rather than the smoke itself, and on getting the smoke out of the way rather than the approach that is being urged by this amendment. So I continue to recommend opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that according to the information provided to the committee by the FAA, no accidents or catastrophic events have been tied solely to the presence of smoke in the flight deck. An analysis of accident data for the last 15 years shows that the equipment that would be required by this amendment would not have reduced fatal accidents. Therefore, I urge that we listen to the experts, keep our focus on eliminating the cause of the smoke, and not adopt the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PETRI. We really do support the intent of the gentlelady from California's amendment, but in our opinion and without further work and review of it, it's not something that is wise to codify into law at this particular juncture. It is my understanding that all of the major air carriers do provide electronic notification of flight status. We want to review it to make sure of the scope of those, less the major carriers, and as to how this would work in practice so that it doesn't result in litigation and not really greater consumer convenience. The industry has been moving. Since you called this to the attention of the industry back several years ago, it has been implemented by all of the major carriers. So progress is being made, and we'd like to work with you to make further progress, but we do oppose the amendment at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I understand the delegate from the District of Columbia would like to address this issue. I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. PETRI. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding. I am just sitting here, listening to this debate and people talking about fairness and 75 years. I did a little math, and 75 years ago, the Railway Labor Act was enacted by a very heavily Democratic Congress in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. And now we are told that they were unfair and unkind, and so on, to organized labor. This is something that was passed by the Congress. The law, the National Labor Relations Act, has always--until now, for 75 years--been interpreted to mean that a majority of those affected had to vote to certify a union. I think if we want to change it, if our sense of what's fair has changed over the last 75 years--and it has in other areas--it should be done by an act of Congress and not by the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board in this fashion. It clearly upsets the balance that was struck and has served us well for several generations.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. We have reviewed the amendment on this side. We feel it is a limited and well-reasoned exception to the rule. Therefore, I would support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I understand this amendment has stirred a certain amount of controversy. I have worked with Chairman Costello on the underlying bill that seeks to improve safety and deal with the tragedy, some of which caused the Colgan crash. We have been talking to the FAA. There is a disagreement about the impact of this amendment, frankly, because they indicate that this is more or less in line with their understanding of the underlying law and the procedures they intend to follow going forward and really merely clarifies it. And if that is the gentleman's intent, it seems reasonable that one take into account different circumstances to maximize safety under changing conditions in different segments of the aviation industry. I certainly do not favor weakening safety, but I do favor strengthening it in relation to differing circumstances that exist. Whether it is emergency aviation or whether it is military aviation or commuter aviation or general aviation, there are some factors that may be reasonable to take into account to maximize safety. I understand or believe that is the author's intention, though others clearly differ with me at this point.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. And if I might take this occasion to be one of the first to wish her a happy birthday. A big milestone is coming up very shortly, and I congratulate you on reaching it. We have reviewed your amendment on this side of the aisle, and we agree with you. We feel it is an important amendment and support it.

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. Will the gentleman yield?