Posted on 08/04/2011 3:56:34 PM PDT by tobyhill
After all the pleading and partisan accusations over funding the Federal Aviation Administration, Democratic lawmakers and Obama officials found the answer to ending a two-week shutdown of the agency literally right under their noses.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is sending a letter Thursday, saying a bill that the GOP-led House passed extending the FAA's operating authority through mid-September gives him the power to waive a provision Democrats opposed that cuts $16.5 million in air service subsides to rural communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Hey pal, I didn’t write the bill. Unlike you, I read the article.
The article says the waiver is limited to three states - will LsHood's action affect only those three?
The article says the (Republican) House has already passed the bill. That fits my understanding that Dems were the ones holding it up, but, if there is a waiver in it, it does not match my understanding of the 'pubbies intent.
And so on, and so on, etc.
Call me stupid. But I though a bill had to be PASSED by both houses before it could become law. Maybe my degree in political science was all for naught and a waste of time.
I understand, but the FAA has a set, limited budget. If the Secretary waives the GEOGRAPHIC cuts, how is he going to pay for the (effectively) added services? Unicorn farts?
The bill gives the Transportation Secretary the authority to do this. All the Freeper knee-jerk reaction is really shocking.
READ THE STORY. Read and comprehend what it says. This isnt’ Obama waving his magic hand, it’s LaHood reading what’s in the House bill.
Read the conditions for the waivers.
Unconstitutional.
Yeah, but you aren’t and they won’t. It would be racist.
They are too cowardly.
“If I was a member of the House GOP I would immediately put this in the courts and get it blocked.”
Good idea, but we need someone with stones to do it. How about Allen West?
Oh wait, never mind.
I’ve taken “the dog” from Bozeman to Billings to hook up with a cheaper airfare. The good folks in Lewistown can just drive to Billings, Bozeman, Great Falls, or Helena.
All of this grandstanding, thousands of people out of work, and NOW they decide to read the bill?
I didn't here of any planes not getting to or from their destination. It may cost more but it sure doesn't change “geographic characteristics” and it doesn't restrict access or “result in undue difficulty”.
LaHood didn't just come up with the waiver theory on his own or he would had already done it.
Any air travel cum legalese experts here LOL!
current law:
49 USC 41731 - Sec. 41731.
(a) General. - In this subchapter - (1) “eligible place” means a place in the United States that - (A)(i) was an eligible point under section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 before October 1, 1988; (ii) received scheduled air transportation at any time after January 1, 1990; and (iii) is not listed in Department of Transportation Orders 89-9-37 and 89-12-52 as a place ineligible for compensation under this subchapter; or (B) determined,(!1) on or after October 1, 1988, and before the date of the enactment of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, under this subchapter by the Secretary to be eligible to receive subsidized small community air service under section 41736(a). (2) “enhanced essential air service” means scheduled air transportation to an eligible place of a higher level or quality than basic essential air service described in section 41732 of this title. (3) “hub airport” means an airport that each year has at least .25 percent of the total annual boardings in the United States. (4) “nonhub airport” means an airport that each year has less than .05 percent of the total annual boardings in the United States. (5) “small hub airport” means an airport that each year has at least .05 percent, but less than .25 percent, of the total annual boardings in the United States. (b) Limitation on Authority To Decide a Place Not an Eligible Place. - The Secretary of Transportation may not decide that a place described in subsection (a)(1) of this section is not an eligible place on the basis of a passenger subsidy at that place or on another basis that is not specifically stated in this subchapter.
SEC. 6. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE REFORM.
(a) In General- Section 41731(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated) by inserting `(A)’ before `(i)(I)’;
(4) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)—
(A) by striking `determined’ and inserting `was determined’;
(B) by striking `Secretary’ and inserting `Secretary of Transportation’; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
`(B) is located not less than 90 miles from the nearest medium or large hub airport; and
`(C) had an average subsidy per passenger of less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary.’.
(b) Limitation on Authority To Decide a Place Not an Eligible Place- Section 41731(b) of such title is amended—
(1) by striking `Secretary of Transportation’ and inserting `Secretary’; and
(2) by striking `on the basis of a passenger subsidy at that place or on another basis’ and inserting `on any basis’.
(c) Exceptions and Waivers- Section 41731 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Exceptions for Locations in Alaska- Subsections (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C) shall not apply with respect to a location in the State of Alaska.
`(d) Waivers- The Secretary may waive subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to a location if the Secretary determines that the geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport.’.
Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2011.
So LaHood can waive it for airports qualifying under subsection (a)(1)(B).. alright I figured that out.
But does it matter that HE CAN’T WAIVE the requirement for those qualifying under (a)(1)(A)?
Anyway kudos to John Mica for his fight. I hope the funding authorized- $3,380,178,082 for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on September 16, 2011.’- is a cut.
Did the GOP really expect this narcissist in chief to honor any provisions of the bills they pass?
Next time he wants a debt increase - stroke of the pen.
If he can figure out a way to raise taxes the same way- stroke of the pen.
Nope, I’m totally confused...
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“does anyone here have a good summary?”
The House bill contained $16.5 million cuts in air service subsidies to 13 rural communities. The subsidy program was created after airlines were deregulated in 1978 to ensure continued service on less profitable routes to remote communities. But critics say some communities receiving subsidies are within a reasonable driving distance of a hub airport.
The 13 cities targeted for air service subsidy cuts are Athens, Ga.; Morgantown, W.Va.; Glendive, Mont.; Alamogordo, N.M.; Ely, Nev.; Jamestown, N.Y.; Bradford, Pa.; Hagerstown, Md.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Johnstown, Pa.; Franklin/Oil City, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa., and Jackson, Tenn.
Evidently, the House exempted the three towns where it would truly be a hardship to drive to the nearest airport and the Senate has agreed to the cuts for the towns that are within a reasonable driving distance.
Who is the brain-dead Republican in the House who put this line in it?
Is the section which changed the voting procedure on airline unions back to what it was pre-Obama still in there or was that voided too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.