Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Graves for his leadership. This is not an easy bill that is done every day, and it is something that is essential to the safety and security of our country as well as the advancement of all the good economic policies that we have.

Mr. Chairman, as one of the only two commercial pilots in Congress with three-plus decades in the air, I understand very personally the importance of having a strong FAA reauthorization bill.

While this bill makes critical investments that benefit the flying public and aviators alike, I have significant concerns about several amendments made in order by the Rules Committee, especially one aimed squarely at Michigan's First District and other rural areas that eliminate the Essential Air Service, and I implore all Members to oppose McClintock amendment No. 62.

However, what was left out of the bill is far more concerning than what was put into it.

My amendment, which has broad bipartisan support, would simply allow for a debate and vote on a critically important topic regarding unproductive pilot retirement age changes in the underlying bill.

However, the powers that be pulled out all the stops to silence dissent and shield the American public from a debate they know they can't win.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will be voting ``no'' on H.R. 3935.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a former commercial airline pilot with more flight hours than pretty much almost anyone in Congress, so I have been told, I value safety first, safety second, and safety third. I am proud to stand with Representative Langworthy in support of his amendment.

The substitution of simulator time--while you could argue that simulators are better today, yes, they are--for a reduction in actual flight time provides no substantive benefit to a prospective pilot.

While some may say that pilots only build hours by spinning around in circles in the sky, I say that is patently false and portrays a pilot workforce that Congress relies on each and every day of the week in a very negative way.

Pilots have a variety of options when it comes to building hours, and we should not assume every pilot will always do the bare minimum. In fact, I have seen pilots always do the extra just to make sure they got it right.

Congress should not be reducing safety and statutory flight hour requirements under the assumption that somehow this will make pilots gravitate toward regional airlines for employment. It won't.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I offer great support for his amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source