On the recordMarch 31, 2011
I do appreciate the intent of the gentleman who is the distinguished ranking member, former chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, but I think that the crafting of this amendment is somewhat flawed in that he does now require FAA to take their limited resources. FAA is not a security agency. It's an aviation agency. And again, we have a jurisdictional question here. We can't put in provisions that require TSA to do certain things, but that is their responsibility. I understand this is also already done where the repair station is at the airport. TSA is in the process of promulgating a rule to address repair station security. But it, appropriately, is in their realm, not FAA. And we do get into trouble in trying to carry out some of these missions when we go to agencies that really this is not their responsibility, their charter under Congress. Again, I think the gentleman's intent is good, but it's misapplied. So with that, I have to oppose the amendment as crafted. I'd be willing to work with him. There is a possibility of working with him, I think, and getting it right. I think his intention is good, but the assignment is misplaced, and it would cause more problems the way it's crafted than benefit. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DeFAZIO. May I request the balance of time remaining on each side? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2 minutes. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes. Mr. DeFAZIO.…
