Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 597, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the bipartisan en bloc. This en bloc contains 17 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
The en bloc includes amendments that look to increase access to airspace for its users. It reinforces staffing levels and availability of advanced technology for air traffic controllers and further enhances runway safety at airports, along with a whole lot of other things that are in the en bloc.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their work on these amendments. I am proud to support this en bloc and encourage all Members to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend and colleague for writing such an important bill, and I thank Chairman Graves and Mr. Larsen for the great cooperation between both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chair, my amendment, cosponsored by Jeff Van Drew and Dr. Andy Harris, requires the President or his designee to certify that offshore wind turbine projects in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas will not ``weaken, degrade, interfere with, or nullify the capability of radar relied upon by the FAA or the Armed Forces.''
It would also require the DOT IG to conduct a comprehensive review of the sufficiency of the process used to approve offshore wind projects in areas critical to air travel and national security.
Many of us, Mr. Chair, are deeply concerned over the safety, efficacy, and likely deleterious environmental impact of embedding some 3,400 ocean wind turbines, each the size of the Chrysler Building in New York City, off our coast.
We have serious, well-founded concerns that offshore wind turbines will interfere with radar capabilities and, as a direct consequence, create a dangerous and potentially catastrophic impact on both military and commercial aviation activities, as well as helicopters used by the Coast Guard to save lives.
Offshore wind development will affect some of the busiest airspace in the country, including the areas surrounding New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, which contain major international airports, dozens of smaller airports, and several military and Coast Guard aviation facilities.
Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's radar interference analysis from August of 2020 stated: ``The research team found that the proposed and hypothetical wind farms are within the line of sight of 36 radar systems, indicating that they will generate interference to these radars under normal atmospheric conditions'' and ``future offshore wind energy installations off the Atlantic Coast may impact land-based radar systems.''
Additionally, in 2017, the interagency Ground-Based Coastal Air Surveillance Wind Turbine-Radar Interference Vulnerability Study found that: ``Offshore wind turbines may pose unique impacts to coastal radar systems given the differences in propagation of radar signals over the ocean versus land, as well as the larger size of offshore wind turbines compared to land-based wind turbines.''
This particular analysis, I would point out, relied on the Block Island Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island whose turbines are 589 feet tall. The turbines slated for installation off the New Jersey and New York coast are significantly higher, approximately 1,000 feet. They are huge, and they will affect radar.
The DOD has expressed serious concerns over offshore wind development off the Virginia coast. How does that apply to us and to commercial aviation, which is, again, the gist of this amendment?
I have personally, Mr. Chair, read several of the major impact studies for these projects, and they confidently, almost arrogantly, suggest and assert that problems that might arise can be ``mitigated.''
Really? Then support my amendment and ensure that that's the case and that we do our due diligence.
A 2022 comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences found that: ``Wind turbine generator mitigation techniques have not been''--I emphasize ``have not been''--``substantially investigated, implemented, matured, or deployed.''
Additionally, the NAS found that wind turbine generator returns obfuscate even marine vessel radar. That is not the subject here, but it is radar. Therefore, it leads to false images when vessels are traversing our oceans.
Mr. Chair, allies, including Taiwan, Japan, Finland, and Sweden, have halted certain offshore wind turbine projects due to objections from their armed services. An article last year in the Taiwan News said: ``The military has confirmed wind turbines could interfere with the surface-to-air missile systems deployed in the northwestern coast of Taiwan. The low-frequency noise generated by the turbines is likely to affect the reflected radio waves that phased array radars need to detect signals of missiles or aircraft.''
That is very serious. This wall will make us blind potentially. It will inhibit our ability to see what is going on. Again, there is so much commercial aircraft, and they need to have unfettered ability to traverse the skies.
Finally, no matter where any of my colleagues stand on offshore wind, a certification by the President or his designee--and the due diligence that that will require--that offshore wind turbines do not weaken, degrade, interfere with, or nullify the capability of radar relied on by the FAA is both prudent and it is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairman for including this in his en bloc amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, before I close, I will take a moment to thank Ranking Member Larsen. He has been a great partner to work with in this process. I also thank the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Garret Graves and Ranking Member Steve Cohen for their hard work on this, too.
The FAA's reauthorization expires at the end of September, and this is truly a bipartisan product. This en bloc reflects that. The underlying bill is supported by over a thousand stakeholders, including national organizations, companies, pilot groups, airlines, airports, individual leaders in the aviation community, and so many more.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the work that has gone into this product, and once again, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle.
This bill is vital to America's airport infrastructure, to our economy, and to the future of American leadership in aviation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment and the bill on final passage a little bit later this morning.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 76 that is offered by Mr. Perry. This amendment proposes to strike two provisions in the bill that seek to make fairer the process of reserving aircraft registration numbers, also known as N-Numbers.
The bill also prevents individuals from profiting from the sale or transfer of an N-Number that is otherwise sold, as was pointed out, by the FAA for $10.
What do I mean by that? There are people out there who scoop up N- Numbers from the FAA for $10 using automated software. What that does is if you are making a transfer and buy a different airplane, and you want to keep the same N-Number, you will be blocked in many cases because of the automated software. They hold hostage that particular N- Number and offer it for sale for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in some cases, depending on what the N-Number is.
As was pointed out, we are interrupting freedom of enterprise. Pirating is also an enterprise. We make it illegal. Why do we make it illegal? Because it should be illegal.
If you use the logic of this amendment, why are we interfering? Why would the government interfere if somebody is just trying to have freedom of enterprise when it comes to pirating or anything else, for that matter, that is illegal? It is just individuals trying to make a living.
The logic is flawed, and we need to keep this provision in the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source