8/7/2019 Braley Statement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braley-statement 1/2

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H2175March 31, 2011

UAS in the NAS must be addressed. H.R. 658requires the FAA to create a comprehensiveplan on integrating UAS into the NAS and tohave it implemented by September 30, 2015.Although many in the unmanned systems in-dustry would like to see this timeline short-ened, the industry is encouraged that the billalso includes language allowing for the expe-dited integration of certain types of UAS.

The bill also includes important provisionson the development and implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation Sys-tem (NextGen). Like all other users of theNAS, UAS will benefit from the implementa-

tion of NextGen, as it will allow manned andunmanned systems to fly in the same air-space.

Without a doubt, UAS integration willhave a tremendous impact on the aerospaceindustry and aid in driving economic devel-opment in many regions across the country.How quickly new job creation and economicbenefits become a reality, however, dependson the progress and timeliness of UAS inte-gration efforts.

The unmanned systems community ap-plauds your efforts to pass this long-overduepiece of legislation, and we look forward tocontinuing to work with Congress and theFAA on implementing these important UASprovisions. If you have any questions, orneed any additional information, please con-tact AUVSI’s Executive Vice President,

Gretchen West, at west@auvsi.org.Sincerely,

MICHAEL TOSCANO,President and CEO AUVSI.

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION,Oshkosh, WI, March 15, 2011.

Hon. THOMAS PETRI,Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Aviation, House of Rep-

resentatives.

Hon. JERRY COSTELLO,Ranking Member, Transportation and Infra-

structure Subcommittee on Aviation, House

of Representatives.

CHAIRMAN PETRI A ND RANKING MEMBER COSTELLO: The Experimental Aircraft Asso-ciation (EAA), representing the aviation in-terests of more than 165,000 members who

passionately engage in aviation for the pur-poses of sport, recreation, and personaltransportation, supports the Federal Avia-tion Administration (FAA) Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 658), as passedby the Transportation and InfrastructureCommittee on March 10, 2011.

EAA has long held the view that the FAAneeds a stable source of funding based on thewell-established, fair, cost-effective and suc-cessful model of excise taxes on aviationfuels as opposed to the implementation of new user fees. We also maintain that the pro-longed period of continuing resolutions fund-ing the agency on short-term extensions hasbeen harmful to the agency, its efforts tomodernize the air traffic system, and to theaviation community as a whole. We applaudyour leadership in making the FAA reau-

thorization a top priority in the 112th Con-gress.

EAA is particularly pleased with the Com-mittee’s decision to address policies of im-portance to EAA members such as funding of general aviation airports through the Air-port Improvement Program, release of vin-tage aircraft design data in support of avia-tion safety, and permitting adjacent residen-tial through-the-fence access to airportswhere appropriate. Above all, we are thrilledthat the Committee agrees that the best wayfor general aviation to fund its share of FAAoperations and capital investment is throughthe use of fuel taxes as opposed to new userfees.

Thank you for your efforts and EAA standsready to assist you and your staff in anymanner necessary.

Respectfully,DOUGLAS C. MACNAIR.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS,

Fairfax, VA, March 29, 2011.

Hon. JOHN L. MICA,Chairman, House Transportation and Infra-

structure Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL II,Ranking Member, House Transportation and In-

frastructure Committee, Washington, DC.DEAR CHAIRMAN MICA AND RANKING MEM-

BER RAHALL, On behalf of its nearly 13,000members, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) would like to commendyour leadership and efforts to improve avia-tion and, in particular, air medical transportsafety.

The IAFC represents public safety agenciesthat provide the public with the highestlevel of service by delivering air medicaltransport or helicopter emergency medicalservices (HEMS), search and rescue, home-land security and wildfire suppression in aneffective, efficient and safe manner. We ap-preciate the language in Section 311 of H.R.658, the FAA Reauthorization and ReformAct of 2011, which demonstrates an under-standing that public safety aviation opera-

tors operate a mixed fleet of aircraft that insome cases cannot be deemed ‘‘civil aircraft’’due to its origin, type and configuration. Wehope that this language remains clearthrough the legislative process so that publicsafety agencies performing HEMS operationsutilizing agency owned and operated aircraftwill not be harmed. In addition, the IAFC ap-preciates the provision in H.R. 658 which pro-vides the FAA Administrator with the re-sponsibility to ‘‘conduct a rulemaking pro-ceeding to improve the safety of flight crew-members, medical personnel, and passengersonboard helicopters providing air ambulanceservices under part 135.’’

Although we believe additional language isneeded in conference committee to clarifythat the regulations on helicopter air ambu-lance operations applies to current part 135

certificate holders only and not to publicsafety agencies performing HEMS operationsutilizing agency owned and operated air-craft, the IAFC supports the provisions re-lated to the safety of air ambulance oper-ations in H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorizationand Reform Act of 2011. Once again, the IAFCwould like to thank you and your staffs foryour ongoing efforts to effectively addressthe need to improve safety in the air medicaltransport industry.

Sincerely,CHIEF JACK PAROW, MA, EFO, CFO,

President and Chairman

of the Board.

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strongsupport of the managers amendment.

Currently, the Department of Transportationis working on a rule that would require finishedmedical devices and other products containinglithium batteries to be shipped as hazardouscargo.

The rule would prevent medical devices, likethis pacemakers, implantable defibrillators,and blood glucose monitors, from beingshipped by air, until special packaging can bedeveloped. We don’t know when this would bedeveloped.

These medical devices are heavily regulatedby the Food and Drug Administration and un-dergo extensive testing to assure safety—in-cluding testing to ensure devices withstand therigors of shipping.

If the DOT rule passes, it would severelydisrupt the medical device industry’s just-in-time delivery system, lead to bottlenecks inthe supply chain, and prevent overnight orsame-day shipping to patients all over thecountry even though these devices pose nodemonstrable safety risk.

It is important to note that the rule wouldn’tjust negatively impact medical devices. It willalso have a significant impact on shipping ev-eryday technologies such as laptops and cellphones. All in all, the rule will cost more than

a billion dollars annually.The rule would have a devastating impacton patient access to life-saving medical de-vices and will increase health care costs.Thankfully, the managers amendment rem-edies this situation, and I applaud ChairmanMICA for his work.

Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise today insupport of Chairman MICA’s manager’samendment to the FAA Reauthorization andReform Act of 2011.

Indiana is the second largest producer ofmedical devices in the country with 20,000jobs in this industry.

There are 1,200 employees at a Boston Sci-entific plant in the town of Spencer, Indianawhich is located in my district. These are Hoo-siers who work hard every day to make com-

ponents that are found in pacemakers. As acardiothoracic surgeon, I implanted numerouspacemakers into patients that ended up savingtheir lives.

A recent rule proposed by the Obama Ad-ministration would restrict the method in whichthese pacemakers are shipped across thecountry because of the very small lithium bat-tery they contain. This rule is expected to costBoston Scientific $30 million and it is a costthat will be passed onto the consumer.

This is a device that is safe enough to putin the human body, but the Obama Adminis-tration does not believe that it’s currently safeenough to ship across the country, specificallyon an airplane. These restrictions will result inhospitals waiting longer to receive pacemakers

and could put human lives in danger.There is no evidence that the transport oflithium batteries has ever lead to a fire on anaircraft.

I fully support Chairman MICA’s Manager’samendment which would require the shippingof lithium batteries to comply with internationalstandards which have proven to be very safeand eliminate President Obama’s proposedrule and I encourage my colleagues to supportthe Manager’s Amendment.

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I rise in op-position to the Managers Amendment, be-cause this amendment is an unprecedentedattack on states. The amendment gives com-plete federal government control over air travelsafety, by radically reducing a state’s ability toprotect its own citizens. Passengers, crew,ground workers, and others have no recourseunder state law, under this amendment. Forthose concerned about an expansion of thefederal government over ordinary activities ofAmerican citizens—this is it.

In fact, the amendment gives broad immu-nity to an entire industry, severely limitingevery Americans’ freedoms under the 7thamendment. The 7th amendment is intendedas a check on potential abuse of power by thegovernment. This amendment injects the gov-ernment into courthouses and into juries. Blan-ket immunity to an entire industry is simply un-precedented.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:44 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.041 H31MRPT1

8/7/2019 Braley Statement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braley-statement 2/2

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSEH2176 March 31, 2011

Here’s what this means: If you or your fam-ily gets injured or even killed in an airline acci-dent, and it’s even clear that airline safety pro-fessionals were completely negligent in theirsafety preparations, you have no recourse. Inthat situation, following events even as tragicas plane crashes, the United States Govern-ment simply leaves you and your family be-hind, contrary to your 7th Amendment rightsunder the Constitution. This type of immunityis completely inappropriate for crashes causedby the negligence of those charged with main-

taining safety.I believe that we should be working to im-prove air safety, not weaken it. We shouldfight to do whatever we can for families whoface the terrible tragedy of plane crashes, notabandoning them. I oppose this amendment,because I stand with American travelers andAmerican families, and I urge my colleaguesto vote against this attack on the 7th Amend-ment to the Constitution.

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

The Acting CHAIR. The question ison the amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. MICA).

The question was taken; and the Act-ing Chair announced that the ayes ap-

peared to have it.Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I de-mand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant toclause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro-ceedings on the amendment offered bythe gentleman from Florida will bepostponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MS. WATERS 

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in orderto consider amendment No. 2 printed inHouse Report 112–46.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I havean amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk willdesignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-

lows:Page 29, after line 2, insert the following(and conform subsequent subsections accord-ingly):

(b) CONSULTATION WITH COMMUNITIES.—Sec-tion 47107(a) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (20) by striking ‘‘and’’ atthe end;

(2) in paragraph (21) by striking the periodat the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(22) the airport owner or operator will

consult on a regular basis regarding airportoperations and the impact of such operationson the community with representatives of the community surrounding the airport, in-cluding—

‘‘(A) residents who are impacted by airportnoise and other airport operations; and

‘‘(B) any organization, the membership of which includes at least 20 individuals who re-side within 10 miles of the airport, that noti-fies the owner or operator of its desire to beconsulted pursuant to this paragraph.’’.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant toHouse Resolution 189, the gentlewomanfrom California (Ms. WATERS) and aMember opposed each will control 5minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentle-woman from California.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, myamendment requires airport operators,as a condition for receiving grants

under the Airport Improvement Pro-gram, to consult on a regular basiswith representatives of the local com-munity regarding airport operationsand their impact on the community.

Airports and airport operations havea profound impact on the communitiesthat surround them. Airplane takeoffsand landings can make noise thatinterrupts families in their homes andworkers in their offices. Daytime take-offs can interrupt school children who

are trying to learn and teachers whoare trying to teach. Nighttime takeoffscan make it difficult for local residentsto sleep. Jet fuel emissions and otherharmful pollutants contribute to airpollution, and traffic congestion sur-rounding an airport adds to the noiseand to the pollution.

Needless to say, airports play an im-portant role in our economy and oursociety. But airport operators shouldbe good neighbors in their commu-nities. Being a good neighbor simplymeans consulting with the local com-munity regarding airport operations. Itmeans minimizing the nighttime take-offs and landings so that residents can

sleep. It means assisting families withresidential noise mitigation programs,such as retrofitting windows, doors,siding, and insulation, to help keep air-craft noise to a minimum. It meansconsulting with local residents andsmall businesses regarding plans to ex-pand, upgrade or realign runways andother airport facilities, and listening totheir concerns.

My amendment requires airport oper-ators that receive Airport Improve-ment Program grants to consult on aregular basis regarding airport oper-ations and their impact on the commu-nity. Airport operators would be re-quired to include in these consulta-tions local residents who are impactedby airport operations. Airport opera-tors would specifically be required toinclude any organization, the member-ship of which includes at least 20 peo-ple who reside within 10 miles of theairport, that notifies the operator of its desire to be consulted.

This amendment is not overly bur-densome for airports and does not costmoney for the Federal Government. Itmerely requires airport operators to begood neighbors, and it holds them ac-countable to the communities thatthey serve.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I haveone of the world’s largest airports inmy district—and they do a good job—but I’m constantly contacted by resi-dents in the surrounding communitywho are raising questions about newplans, new operations, airport noise,and other kinds of things that, if theairport operators were in communica-tion with the communities in somekind of formalized way, they wouldhave a better understanding. It’s notthat these neighbors are saying theydon’t want these airports. As a matterof fact, we’re pleased that they haveLAX in our community. It is job-inten-sive, and we like the idea that the peo-

ple who work there are able not only toearn a good living but to live in thecommunity, and they contribute to theeconomy of the community.

We’re simply talking about urgingand encouraging a relationship wherethe airport operators share with theschools and with the residents whatthey’re doing. Oftentimes, it would justmake for a better understanding. It’snot always controversial. It’s not al-ways confrontational. But it is shining

a light on what is going on and gettingpeople cooperating and understandingthe operations of the airport.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

b 1630

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise inopposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemanfrom Wisconsin is recognized for 5 min-utes.

Mr. PETRI. I would like my col-league from California to know that werecognize that this is a very well-in-tended amendment and it is addressinga concern particularly with the tre-mendous airport in your area. Youhave a later amendment that dealswith the same subject that we think ismore workable and better.

The concern we have has to do withthe fact that there are a number of pro-visions in law already requiring air-ports to consult with local commu-nities in a variety of situations. Andwe’re just afraid that this particularamendment could be more of a one-size-fits-all approach across the wholecountry that could create problemsrather than solve them. Therefore,we’re looking forward to working withyou on amendment No. 32, but I do op-pose the current amendment as beingtoo broad.

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentlemanyield?

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentle-woman from California.

Ms. WATERS. Do I understand thatthe other amendment that I have com-ing up that’s more specific to Los An-geles is something that you would bemore inclined to cooperate on ratherthan this amendment?

Mr. PETRI. Yes.Ms. WATERS. Well, that’s fine. Be-

cause I do know that this amendmentthat I’m offering is a national amend-ment that would cause all of the air-ports to come into compliance withthis kind of cooperative amendment.

And if, in fact, the gentleman is offer-ing cooperation on the next amend-ment, I would withdraw this one.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objec-tion, the amendment is withdrawn.

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. PIERLUISI 

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in orderto consider amendment No. 3 printed inHouse Report 112–46.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, Ihave an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk willdesignate the amendment.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:01 Apr 01, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A31MR7.019 H31MRPT1