AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. ACKERMAN

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in part C of House Report 111

- 126.

[Page: H5976]

Mr. ACKERMAN. I rise in support of the amendment which I have at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Ackerman :

Page 259, after line 22, insert the following (with the correct sequential provision designations [rep lacing the numbers currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table of contents accordingly:

SEC. 826. COLLEGE POINT MARINE TRANSFER STATION, NEW YORK.

(a) Finding

. -- Congress finds that the Federal Aviation Administration, in determinin g whether the proposed College Point Marine Transfer Station in New York City, New York, if constructed, would constitute a hazard to air navigation, has not followed published policy statements of the Federal Aviation Administration, including

--

(1) A dvisory Circular Number 150/5200

- 33B 2, entitled ``Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports'';

(2) Advisory Circular Number 150/5300

- 13, entitled ``Airport Design''; and

(3) the publication entitled ``Policies and Procedures Memorandum

-- A irports Division'', Number 5300.1B, dated Feb. 5, 1999.

(b) Designation of Transfer Station as Hazard to Air Navigation

. -- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall take such actions as may be necessary to designate the proposed Col lege Point Marine Transfer Station in New York City, New York, as a hazard to air navigation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 464, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman ) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Cha ir recognizes the gentleman from New York.Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this simple amendment on behalf of myself and the

gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley ). This has to do with safety trumping garbage. It has to

do with common sense.

The City of New York Department of Sanitation has proposed a marine transfer station. These are generally built on the shoreline because trash is compacted there and put on barges and then carted away on the Long Island Sound or the East River or the Hudson R iver.

Of all the shoreline places to build this, would you suspect the one place that would be picked by the Department of Sanitation would be directly opposite one of the biggest active runways, one of the most active runways in the whole United State s of America, where planes take off and land approximately every 20 seconds. I'm talking about LaGuardia Airport, the airport with the largest number of flights in New York City.

This is an aerial view of the airport. This is LaGuardia Airport's runway . LaGuardia Airport, most people don't know, has only two runways for all of these great number of flights.

The garbage plant is planned right over here, opposite the runway, 2,000 feet away. The rules and regulations of the FAA, which is what we're as king for in this amendment to be implemented and utilized, say that you should not put a garbage treatment plant anywhere near the runway protection zone which is currently 2,000 feet away. This is 2,000 feet

-- less than that

-- according to this map which we downloaded from Google.

There will be a new flight slope plan implemented that the FAA has approved which says it can't be within 2,500 feet. Why would you put a garbage facility, an attractant to birds, less than 2,000 feet away from one of the most active runways?

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall ) requested of the FAA, they declined, and Secretary of Transportation LaHood overruled them and released the number of bird strikes at airports around the country. Last year there were 87 bird strik es at LaGuardia Airport alone.

Now, our pilots are good. You might have seen a little news report that said they can even land on water. And indeed, that's what happened when one of our jets was struck by birds.

Garbage is an attractant to birds. The FAA rules and recommendations say don't put these things in the runway protection zone. Our amendment simply says to the FAA, you have to follow your own guidelines.

Put it anywhere else. There's a political co ncern here, and the political concern is not a NIMBY concern. This will most likely be in mine or Mr. Crowley 's district. It borders both of our districts right now.

This site is the least politically damaging to us because it's in a commercial area. A ny other place that they will move it will cause us some political concerns. But those political concerns that we will have to suffer if they move this anywhere up and down the coast in either of our districts is not as important to the safety of the flyin g public.I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MICA. This amendment, unfortunately, is a local issue that we're p utting into a Federal piece of legislation that is very important for safety; and the gentleman, who I greatly respect,

Mr. Ackerman , is trying to do the best he can to make arguments that this dump poses safety

concerns and hazards to aviation. I don't ha ve the capability of making that determination, nor does Congress. We rely on the FAA. They have looked at this. They say that it does not pose a hazard to air navigation.

That being said, I like Mr. Ackerman , and sometimes I find myself in the situati on like Mr.

Ackerman , and you try to use any means you can to satisfy concerns about a project, whether it be local, State or Federal to the best benefit of your constituents.

So therefore, I am not going to call for a vote. I'm not going to actively o ppose. I probably will quietly say no to this and let it pass.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield briefly to the Congressman from New York (Mr. Crowley ).

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened very care fully to the objections. And let me just say that if LaGuardia Airport is forced to close for 10 minutes, it sets off an explosion that affects the entire flight paths of the Eastern seacoast. So whatever does happen, we were very fortunate that we had Cap tain Sullenberger, who was able to land Flight 1549 safely.

This is not just a local concern. This is a concern, I think nationally as well. The number of geese or fowl that disrupt air travel happens more often than the public was led to believe.

I think that building a facility for waste transfer within 2,000 feet of the runway is simply ludicrous. We shouldn't be doing that. I think that the City of New York and the Department of

Sanitation needs to rethink this one and send it back to the drawin g board.

Gary Ackerman and myself are calling foul right now. This should not happen. We're sending that message home to our folks back in New York.

Mr. MICA. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would yield back the balan ce of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time remaining?The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.

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

[Time: 16:30]

Well, this is the conclusion, really, on the debate of the FAA authorization. It ends with a question of whether we should close the dump or keep the dump open.

As I said, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Ackerman and also for Mr. Crowley , and I know what they're trying to do for their constituents. So I rise in very quiet opposition, but I do have to state the facts, that this is not a matter that really should be in the bill, but we'll try to assist our colleagues as they're trying to do the bes t they can for their constituents.

On the larger question of the bill, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I also rise in opposition to the bill, somewhat quietly. Every Member can vote the way they'd like. I'm not telling or asking Republican Members to v ote one way or another, but you do have to be the judge of what we're doing here today. It is important that we do reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.

We've had a 2

- year delay, not of any fault of my colleagues under the great leadership of Mr

. Oberstar , Mr. Costello , and Mr. Petri , our ranking

[Page: H5977] member. We've done our level best to make certain that we have the policy, the projects, and the funding to have the safest aviation system in the world. They can be very proud of their wo rk.

Now, we do have some differences of opinion on some particular provisions. This was voted on before, and some circumstances have changed. We have a new President. He is trying to resolve a very contentious labor issue. I don't like putting that iss ue in now. That's different than

when we voted on it before. We did have a different President and a different situation. So here I am, a Republican, saying we need to support our President, but we need to do that and to not set a bad precedence for all la bor issues to be drug before Congress in this manner.

Then, on the question of job creation and job killing, I don't know how many jobs are in the provisions for insisting on this mandated inspection of foreign repair stations. That sounds good,

but it reverts us back to a time when we used to do that in the United States. Twice a year, we would inspect every one of these stations whether we needed to or not, and that was a diversion of our resources. We changed that to a risk

- based system, and that's w hat we need to maintain both domestically and internationally.

Finally, 95 percent of this bill was debated before. There is an antitrust immunity provision that does repeal some provisions we've given to airline alliances. It's a job killer. It's esti mated to be over 100,000 jobs. I don't know how many. At a time when people will come to us as we return to our districts over Memorial Day weekend, we can't leave here and say that we've eliminated more jobs. Many of these jobs, whether they're repair sta tions or the airline industry, are good

paying jobs that people need so desperately today.So the question before us is how we vote on this particular legislation at this time and place

and with these particular provisions. Some are good. Some are bad. I choose to vote ``no'' today. I'm sorry.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman ).

The amendment was agreed to.